Thursday, 23 July 2015

The Indirect Cost of MS


Stawowczyk E, Malinowski KP, Kawalec P, Moćko P.The indirect costs of multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015:1-28. [Epub ahead of print]

The aim of this systematic review is to collect and summarize all current data on the indirect costs related to absenteeism and presenteeism associated with multiple sclerosis.

All collected costs were recalculated to average annual cost per patient, expressed in 2014 prices US$ using the consumer price index and purchasing power parity (scenario 1) and expressed as proportion of specific gross domestic product in current local currency unit to adjust for country's development (scenario 2). Identified studies were then analyzed in order to assess their possible inclusion in the meta-analysis. The authors identified 63 records, of which 23 were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall indirect cost per patient calculated in scenario 1 was as high as US$20,167 with US$22,197 in Europe, US$17,382 in North America and US$153 in Asia. Overall indirect cost per patient calculated in scenario 2 was equal to US$16,939, with US$19,612 in Europe, US$11,592 in North America and US$899 in Asia. Overall indirect costs varied from US$3726 for patients with EDSS score less than 3 to US$19,264 for patients with Expanded Disability Status Scale score grater that 7. This revealed the great economic burden of multiple sclerosis on society. Costs were higher for Europe than for other continents and were also higher for patients with a higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score.

There is more to MS than just hospital costs, maybe of interest to some

7 comments:

  1. Re "There is more to MS than just hospital costs, maybe of interest to some"

    The report on the link below is a most comprehensive report into costs of MS in Australia. It certainly shows why effectively treating people with MS and enabling them to continue to be part of and contribute to society is so critical - enough of the "wait until you have another relapse" attitudes.

    http://www.msra.org.au/files/msra/docs/Economic%20Impact%20of%20MS%20in%202010%20Full%20Report%20v2.pdf

    And this report, although now ten years old, is especially relevant if you look at the Indirect Costs section which starts on page 46.
    http://www.msra.org.au/files/msra/docs/AccessEconomicsReportWinter2005.pdf

    Most importantly, we should not forget the human costs of lives de-railed by this disease - not just the patients themselves, but their families (and friends) who also suffer from the impacts of MS when it raises its ugly head.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly. I'm the spouse of someone with advanced MS (he is 41; I'm mid-30's) and his disease is now at the point of limiting my career prospects. Not only is there a loss associated with his loss of employment, but it will now include the potential loss of my employment and my ability to support myself in retirement someday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the Politicians announce the welfare cuts so that it is a fairer society for hard working people everyone is behind them. If you have RRMS you have worked and if you're caring for someone with PPMS you're working harder than the rest of the population as you have two jobs. You don't get a day off, who looks after you if you're unwell? We are all the forgotten "hard working people". We suddenly become a burden on society. It's not just about the cost of drugs and treatments.

      Delete
  3. This should (and I stress on the word 'should') be clear as bell after all these years. However, it took me a while to realise that every action by politicians to date has been based around Keynesian economics. For those who have not come across this term before please look it up and then look back over the past yr in USA/Europe and things finally make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately to me, these days it seems like Adam Smith/Milton Friedman 'style' economics is coming more to the fore than Keynes.

      Delete
    2. There is some truth to this also, should health care provision be a free market. You do understand that our group would be stupendously successful at this!

      Delete
    3. Haha, no, healthcare provision should not be a free market, I do not want an US system viz. Adam Smith, in the UK, the erosion is happening bit by bit as it is. Read Allyson Pollock's latest blog on this www.allysonpollock.com/?page_id=22

      So sorry, no exceptions even for your brilliantly talented group, NHS all the way for me. It could be a lot better but I honestly do not see privatisation being the answer, especially for low income people and/are those with chronic conditions.

      Delete

Please note that all comments are moderated and any personal or marketing-related submissions will not be shown.