z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Differences in healthcare expenditures for inflammatory bowel disease by insurance status, income, and clinical care setting
Author(s) -
Michelle D. Park,
Jay Bhattacharya,
K.T. Park
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
peerj
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.927
H-Index - 70
ISSN - 2167-8359
DOI - 10.7717/peerj.587
Subject(s) - medicine , medical expenditure panel survey , inflammatory bowel disease , socioeconomic status , odds , inpatient care , odds ratio , health care , household income , outpatient visits , environmental health , emergency department , emergency medicine , disease , demography , logistic regression , health insurance , population , archaeology , sociology , economics , history , economic growth , psychiatry
Background. Socioeconomic factors and insurance status have not been correlated with differential use of healthcare services in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aim. To describe IBD-related expenditures based on insurance and household income with the use of inpatient, outpatient, emergency, and office-based services, and prescribed medications in the United States (US). Methods. We evaluated the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1996 to 2011 of individuals with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Nationally weighted means, proportions, and multivariate regression models examined the relationships between income and insurance status with expenditures. Results. Annual per capita mean expenditures for CD, UC, and all IBD were $10,364 ( N = 238), $7,827 ( N = 95), and $9,528, respectively, significantly higher than non-IBD ($4,314, N = 276, 372, p < 0.05). Publicly insured patients incurred the highest costs ($18,067) over privately insured ($8,014, p < 0.05) or uninsured patients ($5,129, p < 0.05). Among all IBD patients, inpatient care composed the highest proportion of costs ($3,392, p < 0.05). Inpatient costs were disproportionately higher for publicly insured patients. Public insurance had higher odds of total costs than private (OR 2.13, CI [1.08–4.19]) or no insurance (OR 4.94, CI [1.26–19.47]), with increased odds for inpatient and emergency care. Private insurance had higher costs associated with outpatient care, office-based care, and prescribed medicines. Low-income patients had lower costs associated with outpatient (OR 0.38, CI [0.15–0.95]) and office-based care (OR 0.21, CI [0.07–0.62]). Conclusions. In the US, high inpatient utilization among publicly insured patients is a previously unrecognized driver of high IBD costs. Bridging this health services gap between SES strata for acute care services may curtail direct IBD-related costs.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom