Robert I. Garis, RPh, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical and Administrative Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha
Kevin C. Farmer, PhD
Associate Professor, College of Pharmacy, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City
PDF version: 


Purpose: To compare health care costs and their components in patients with chronic illnesses.

Design: Quasi-experimental retrospective database analysis of an integrated state-Medicaid dataset.

Methods: Nine chronic illnesses and 28 two-disease combinations were evaluated in 284,060 patients. Dependent variables were total cost and the component costs (hospital, physician, home health and medical supplies, and pharmacy). Statistical analysis included analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA).

Results: The nine chronic illnesses studied were: psychosis, depression, cardiovascular illness, congestive heart failure, diabetes, acid peptic illness, respiratory illness/ asthma, hypertension, and anxiety. Psychosis and depression patients had the highest mean yearly costs at $6,964 and $5,505, respectively. Highest component costs were mental health practitioners for psychosis and hospital costs for depression. All other conditions had significantly lower yearly costs. Component costs consisted primarily of pharmacy and hospital costs. Psychosis was a component in 5 of the 7 most costly chronic-disease concurrences. The highest disease-concurrence mean cost was for psychosis and depression ($18,318).

Conclusions: The unique resource needs of different chronic illnesses should be considered in benchmarking and evaluating chronic-disease management programs.

Key terms: comorbidity, Medicaid program, disease management, cost analysis.

Author correspondence:
Robert I. Garis, RPh, PhD
Creighton University
School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions
Omaha, NE 68178

Sources of financial support: This manuscript was written while the corresponding author was a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, School of Pharmacy. The work was supported by the University of Oklahoma, the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education, and a grant from the Graduate Student Association of the University of Oklahoma.

This paper has undergone peer review by appropriate members of Managed Care's Editorial Advisory Board.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.