Antimigraine medication use and associated health care costs in employed patients

Migraine is under diagnosed and suboptimally treated in the majority of patients, and also associated with decreased productivity in employees. The objective of this retrospective study is to assess the antimigraine medication use and associated resource utilization in employed patients. Patients with primary diagnosis of migraine or receiving antimigraine prescription drugs were identified from an employer-sponsored health insurance plan in 2010. Medical utilization and health care costs were determined for the year of 2010. Generalized linear regression was applied to evaluate the association between health care costs and the use of antimigraine medications by controlling covariates. Of 465 patients meeting the study criteria, nearly 30% that had migraine diagnosis were prescribed antimigraine medications, and 20% that had migraine diagnosis were not prescribed antimigraine medications. The remaining 50% were prescribed antimigraine medications but did not have migraine diagnosis. Patients with antimigraine medication prescriptions showed lower frequency of emergency department visits than those without antimigraine medication prescriptions. Regression models indicated an increase in migraine-related health care costs by 86% but decreases in all-cause medical costs and total health care costs by 42 and 26%, respectively, in the antimigraine medication use group after adjusting for covariates. Employed patients experienced inadequate pharmacotherapy for migraine treatment. After controlling for covariates, antimigraine prescription drug use was associated with lower total medical utilization and health care costs. Further studies should investigate patient self-reported care and needs to manage headache and develop effective intervention to improve patient quality of life and productivity

Evaluating the Impact of a ‘Virtual Clinic’ on Patient Experience, Personal and Provider Costs of Care in Urinary Incontinence: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of using a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. Materials and Methods: Women, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Both groups completed a validated, web-based interactive, patient-reported outome measure (ePAQ-Pelvic Floor), in advance of their appointment followed by either a telephone consultation (Virtual Clinic) or face-to-face consultation (Standard Care). The primary outcome was the mean ‘short-term outcome scale’ score on the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary Outcome Measures included the other domains of the PEQ (Communications, Emotions and Barriers), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), personal, societal and NHS costs. Results: 195 women were randomised: 98 received the intervention and 97 received standard care. The primary outcome showed a non-significant difference between the two study arms. No significant differences were also observed on the CSQ and SF-12. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher PEQ domain scores for Communications, Emotions and Barriers (including following adjustment for age and parity). Whilst standard care was overall more cost-effective, this was minimal (£38.04). The virtual clinic also significantly reduced consultation time (10.94 minutes, compared with a mean duration of 25.9 minutes respectively) and consultation costs compared to usual care (£31.75 versus £72.17 respectively), thus presenting potential cost-savings in out-patient management. Conclusions: The virtual clinical had no impact on the short-term dimension of the PEQ and overall was not as cost-effective as standard care, due to greater clinic re-attendances in this group. In the virtual clinic group, consultation times were briefer, communication experience was enhanced and personal costs lower. For medical conditions of a sensitive or intimate nature, a virtual clinic has potential to support patients to communicate with health professionals about their condition

Body Mass Index and Employment-Based Health Insurance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Obese workers incur greater health care costs than normal weight workers. Possibly viewed by employers as an increased financial risk, they may be at a disadvantage in procuring employment that provides health insurance. This study aims to evaluate the association between body mass index [BMI, weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters] of employees and their likelihood of holding jobs that include employment-based health insurance [EBHI].</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used the 2004 Household Components of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We utilized logistic regression models with provision of EBHI as the dependent variable in this descriptive analysis. The key independent variable was BMI, with adjustments for the domains of demographics, social-economic status, workplace/job characteristics, and health behavior/status. BMI was classified as normal weight (18.5–24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), or obese (≥ 30.0). There were 11,833 eligible respondents in the analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among employed adults, obese workers [adjusted probability (AP) = 0.62, (0.60, 0.65)] (<it>P </it>= 0.005) were more likely to be employed in jobs with EBHI than their normal weight counterparts [AP = 0.57, (0.55, 0.60)]. Overweight workers were also more likely to hold jobs with EBHI than normal weight workers, but the difference did not reach statistical significance [AP = 0.61 (0.58, 0.63)] (<it>P </it>= 0.052). There were no interaction effects between BMI and gender or age.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this nationally representative sample, we detected an association between workers' increasing BMI and their likelihood of being employed in positions that include EBHI. These findings suggest that obese workers are more likely to have EBHI than other workers.</p

Economic Evaluations of Occupational Health Interventions from a Company’s Perspective: A Systematic Review of Methods to Estimate the Cost of Health-Related Productivity Loss

Objectives: To investigate the methods used to estimate the indirect costs of health-related productivity in economic evaluations from a company’s perspective. Methods: The primary literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase. Supplemental searches were conducted in the Cochrane NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, the Ryerson International Labour, Occupational Safety and Health Index database, scans of reference lists and researcher’s own literature database. Article selection was conducted independently by two researchers based on title, keywords, and abstract, and if needed, full text. Differences were resolved by a consensus procedure. Articles were selected based on seven criteria addressing study population, type of intervention, comparative intervention, outcome, costs, language and perspective, respectively. Characteristics of the measurement and valuation of health-related productivity were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. Costs of health-related productivity were estimated using (a combination of) data related to sick leave, compensated sick leave, light or modified duty or work presenteeism. Data were collected from different sources (e.g. administrative databases, worker self-report, supervisors) and by different methods (e.g. questionnaires, interviews). Valuation varied in terms of reported time units, composition and source of the corresponding price weights, and whether additional elements, such as replacement costs, were included. Conclusions: Methods for measuring and valuing health-related productivity vary widely, hindering comparability of results and decision-making. We provide suggestions for improvement

Evaluating the health and economic impact of osteoarthritis pain in the workforce: results from the National Health and Wellness Survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been increasing recognition that osteoarthritis (OA) affects younger individuals who are still participants in the workforce, but there are only limited data on the contribution of OA pain to work productivity and other outcomes in an employed population. This study evaluated the impact of OA pain on healthcare resource utilization, productivity and costs in employed individuals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were derived from the 2009 National Health and Wellness Survey. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to characterize employed individuals (full-time, part-time, or self-employed) ≥20 years of age who were diagnosed with OA and had arthritis pain in the past month relative to employed individuals not diagnosed with OA or not experiencing arthritis pain in the past month. Work productivity was assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire; health status was assessed using the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores from the SF-12v2 Health Survey and SF-6D health utilities; and healthcare utilization was evaluated by type and number of resources within the past 6 months. Direct and indirect costs were estimated and compared between the two cohorts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Individuals with OA pain were less likely to be employed. Relative to workers without OA pain (n = 37,599), the OA pain cohort (n = 2,173) was significantly older (mean age 52.1 ± 11.5 years vs 41.4 ± 13.2 years; <it>P </it>< 0.0001) and with a greater proportion of females (58.2% vs 45.9%; <it>P </it>< 0.0001). OA pain resulted in greater work impairment than among workers without OA pain (34.4% versus 17.8%; <it>P </it>< 0.0001), and was primarily due to presenteeism (impaired activity while at work). Health status, assessed both by the SF-12v2 and the SF-6D was significantly poorer among workers with OA pain (<it>P </it>< 0.0001), and healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher (<it>P </it>< 0.0001) than workers without OA pain. Total costs were higher in the OA pain cohort ($15,047 versus$8,175; <it>P </it>< 0.0001), driven by indirect costs that accounted for approximately 75% of total costs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A substantial proportion of workers suffer from OA pain. After controlling for confounders, the impact of OA pain was significant, resulting in lower productivity and higher costs.</p

Valorisation of Biowastes for the Production of Green Materials Using Chemical Methods

With crude oil reserves dwindling, the hunt for a sustainable alternative feedstock for fuels and materials for our society continues to expand. The biorefinery concept has enjoyed both a surge in popularity and also vocal opposition to the idea of diverting food-grade land and crops for this purpose. The idea of using the inevitable wastes arising from biomass processing, particularly farming and food production, is, therefore, gaining more attention as the feedstock for the biorefinery. For the three main components of biomass—carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins—there are long-established processes for using some of these by-products. However, the recent advances in chemical technologies are expanding both the feedstocks available for processing and the products that be obtained. Herein, this review presents some of the more recent developments in processing these molecules for green materials, as well as case studies that bring these technologies and materials together into final products for applied usage