Why the study?
Does the presence of atrial fibrillation or other cardiac arrhythmias increase health benefit costs and reduce productivity in an employed population?
Does the presence of atrial fibrillation or other cardiac arrhythmias increase health benefit costs and reduce productivity in an employed population?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Atrial fibrillation and other cardiac arrhythmias impose a significant economic and productivity burden on employers, driven by increased healthcare costs and absenteeism.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) and other cardiac arrhythmias (CA) in an employed population. METHODS: Regression model analysis comparing objective work output, employee turnover, comorbidity prevalence, total health benefit (health care, drug, sick leave, disability, workers' compensation) costs, and absence days for AF versus Non-AF and CA versus Non-CA cohorts, while controlling for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Cohort sizes were 1403 (AF), 323,333 (Non-AF), 4497 (CA), and 318,917 (Non-CA) employees. Annual AF benefit costs exceeded Non-AF costs by $3958. CA costs exceeded Non-CA costs by $2897. AF and CA cohorts had significantly more sick leave and short-term disability absence days than Non-AF and Non-CA cohorts, respectively. Annual CA work output was significantly lower than Non-CA output. CONCLUSIONS: AF and CA place significant cost, absence, and productivity burdens on employers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rohrbacker et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: