Does the unification of health financing affect the distribution pattern of out‐of‐pocket health expenses in Turkey?

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149529/1/ijsw12389_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149529/2/ijsw12389.pd

Indirect and direct costs of acute coronary syndromes with comorbid atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or both

Vahram Ghushchyan,1,2 Kavita V Nair,2 Robert L Page II2,3 1College of Business and Economics, American University of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia; 2Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA; 3Department of Physical Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA Background: The objective of this study was to determine the direct and indirect costs of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) alone and with common cardiovascular comorbidities. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2009. Four mutually exclusive cohorts were evaluated: ACS only, ACS with atrial fibrillation (AF), ACS with heart failure (HF), and ACS with both conditions. Direct costs were calculated for all-cause and cardiovascular-related health care resource utilization. Indirect costs were determined from productivity losses from missed days of work. Regression analysis was developed for each outcome controlling for age, US census region, insurance coverage, sex, race, ethnicity, education attainment, family income, and comorbidity burden. A negative binomial regression model was used for health care utilization variables. A Tobit model was utilized for health care costs and productivity loss variables. Results: Total health care costs were greatest for those with ACS and both AF and HF (38,484±5,191) followed by ACS with HF (32,871±2,853), ACS with AF (25,192±2,253), and ACS only (17,954±563). Compared with the ACS only cohort, the mean all-cause adjusted health care costs associated with ACS with AF, ACS with HF, and ACS with AF and HF were $5,073 (95$11,297 (95% CI 5,610–16,985), and $15,761 (95$5,266 (95% CI -7,765, -2,767), when compared with patients without these conditions. Conclusion: ACS imposes a significant economic burden at both the individual and society level, particularly when with comorbid AF and HF. Keywords: acute coronary syndromes, comorbid atrial fibrillation, heart failure, cost

Comparing Clinical Effectiveness and Drug Toxicity With Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone Using Two Potency Ratios in a Managed Care Population

This study compared the clinical effectiveness and drug toxicity of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide. Electronic health records and claims data were used to identify patients initially prescribed chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide. A total of 214 patients prescribed chlorthalidone 25 mg were matched with 428 patients prescribed hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (1:1 potency ratio) and 214 patients prescribed hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg (1:2 potency ratio). Mean systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure values at least 30 days after initial prescription were lower with chlorthalidone (132.2/74 mm Hg) compared with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (137.0/77.5 mm Hg) and hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg (138.6/78.5 mm Hg) (P<.05 for all comparisons). Goal systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure values were achieved in a higher percentage of patients prescribed chlorthalidone (45.0%/78.3%) than with either hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (32.1%/63.9%) or hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg (32.8%/68.9%) (P<.05 for all comparisons). Mean serum potassium was 3.94 mEq/L with chlorthalidone 25 mg, 4.13 mEq/L with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (P<.01 vs chlorthalidone), and 3.96 mEq/L with hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg. These findings indicate that chlorthalidone 25 mg is associated with a better antihypertensive response than hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg or 50 mg, without clinically significant differences in serum potassium