PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 285–291 | Cite as

Longitudinal versus Cross-Sectional Methodology for Estimating the Economic Burden of Breast Cancer

A Pilot Study
  • C. Daniel Mullins
  • Junling Wang
  • Jesse L. Cooke
  • Lisa Blatt
  • Claudia R. Baquet
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Projecting future breast cancer treatment expenditure is critical for budgeting purposes, medical decision making and the allocation of resources in order to maximise the overall impact on health-related outcomes of care. Currently, both longitudinal and cross-sectional methodologies are used to project the economic burden of cancer. This pilot study examined the differences in estimates that were obtained using these two methods, focusing on Maryland, US Medicaid reimbursement data for chemotherapy and prescription drugs for the years 1999–2000.

Methods: Two different methodologies for projecting life cycles of cancer expenditure were considered. The first examined expenditure according to chronological time (calendar quarter) for all cancer patients in the database in a given quarter. The second examined only the most recent quarter and constructed a hypothetical expenditure life cycle by taking into consideration the number of quarters since the respective patient had her first claim.

Results: We found different average expenditures using the same data and over the same time period. The longitudinal measurement had less extreme peaks and troughs, and yielded average expenditure in the final period that was 60% higher than that produced using the cross-sectional analysis; however, the longitudinal analysis had intermediate periods with significantly lower estimated expenditure than the cross-sectional data.

Conclusions: These disparate results signify that each of the methods has merit. The longitudinal method tracks changes over time while the cross-sectional approach reflects more recent data, e.g. current practice patterns. Thus, this study reiterates the importance of considering the methodology when projecting future cancer expenditure.

Keywords

Letrozole Average Expenditure Future Expenditure Medicaid Reimbursement Chronological Time 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the University of Maryland, Maryland Statewide Health Network through the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Funds.

The data in this study was provided through co-operation with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Fadia T. Shaya, Ph.D., for her review and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooper BS, Rice DP. The economic cost of illness revisited. Soc Secur Bull 1975; 39: 21–36Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartunian NS, Smart CN, Thompson MS. The incidence and economic costs of cancer, motor vehicle injuries, coronary heart disease, and stroke: a comparative analysis. Am J Public Health 1980; 70: 1249–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Potosky AL, Riley GE, Lubitz JD, et al. Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database. Med Care 1993; 31: 732–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40 (8 Suppl.): IV-3–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SEER [online]. Available from URL: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/ [Accessed 2003 Oct 14]
  6. 6.
    Desch CE, Penberthy LT. Using state and federal claims data to evaluate the patterns and costs of cancer care. Cancer Treat Res 1998; 97: 53–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown JM, Riley GF, Schussler N, et al. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002; 40 (8 Suppl.): IV-104–17Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chirikos TN. Cancer economics: on variations in the costs of treating cancer. Cancer Control 2002; 9 (1): 59–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menard S. Longitudinal research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sara Miller McCune, Sage Publications Inc., 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodgson TA. Annual costs of illness versus lifetime costs of illness and implications of structural change. Drug Inf J 1988; 22: 323–42Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaya FT, Mullins CD, Wong W. Incidence versus prevalence modeling in pharmacoeconomics. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2 (5): 435–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Daniel Mullins
    • 1
  • Junling Wang
    • 2
  • Jesse L. Cooke
    • 2
  • Lisa Blatt
    • 2
  • Claudia R. Baquet
    • 3
  1. 1.Center on Drugs and Public PolicyUniversity of Maryland School of PharmacyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Pharmaceutical Health Services ResearchUniversity of Maryland School of PharmacyBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Epidemiology and Preventive MedicineUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations