Mp57-04 Evaluation of the Elevated Economic Burden of Urinary Incontinence in Patients With Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2016-2021

You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Value of Care: Cost and Outcomes II (MP57)1 May 2024MP57-04 EVALUATION OF THE ELEVATED ECONOMIC BURDEN OF URINARY INCONTINENCE IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER: AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEDICAL EXPENDITURE PANEL SURVEY 2016-2021 Emily Ji, Daniel Won, Aidan Raikar, Rebecca Arteaga, Jaewoo Kim, Devin Boehm, Jonathan Rosenfeld, and Ziho Lee Emily JiEmily Ji , Daniel WonDaniel Won , Aidan RaikarAidan Raikar , Rebecca ArteagaRebecca Arteaga , Jaewoo KimJaewoo Kim , Devin BoehmDevin Boehm , Jonathan RosenfeldJonathan Rosenfeld , and Ziho LeeZiho Lee View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009420.83948.eb.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urinary incontinence (UI) after prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is a common complication that negatively impacts quality-of-life. There are limited data evaluating the economic burden of UI in this patient population. Herein, we compared healthcare costs of PCa patients with and without UI using a large-scale survey of the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a survey – weighted design from the 2016-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey comparing healthcare utilization and medical expenditures between patients with a history of PCa with and without a diagnosis of UI. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) model was utilized to compare average medical expenditure and healthcare utilization for patients with PCa with and without UI, controlling for age, race, insurance status, and years of education. RESULTS: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics are listed in Table 1. The groups differed by insurance status, with the UI group having a higher proportion of uninsured and lower proportion of privately insured compared to the group without UI (8.9% vs. 1.0%, 2.4% vs. 14.7%, p=0.004). Figure 1 depicts adjusted OR for medical expenditure. Patients with PCa and UI had higher total medical expenditure ($24,347 vs. $15,315, OR=2.33, 95% CI 1.18-4.60, p=0.015). When broken down by healthcare setting, the additional cost was driven by higher out-of-hospital expenditures, specifically higher number of office-based visits (OR=3.81, 95% CI 1.76-8.26, p=0.001), medication expenditure (OR=2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.12, p=0.041), outpatient expenditure (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.05-4.29, p=0.037), and other costs (OR=2.43, 95% CI 1.17-5.08, p=0.018), which represents medical supply costs such as pads and diapers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of UI and PCa are more likely to have higher medical expenditures and healthcare utilization than those with PCa without a UI diagnosis. This may be driven byout-of-hospital expenditures for outpatient visits and medical supplies. Download PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e937 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Emily Ji More articles by this author Daniel Won More articles by this author Aidan Raikar More articles by this author Rebecca Arteaga More articles by this author Jaewoo Kim More articles by this author Devin Boehm More articles by this author Jonathan Rosenfeld More articles by this author Ziho Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...