This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (21)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice, Other  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Public Health  • Public Health, Other  • Articles for Residents  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kevin D. Frick, PhD; Emily W. Gower, PhD; John H. Kempen, MD, PhD; Jennifer L. Wolff, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(4):544-550.

Objectives  To assess the economic impact of excess medical and informal care and the health utility loss associated with visual impairment and blindness in adults aged 40 years and older in the United States.

Methods  Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from 1996 to 2002 were pooled to estimate the relationship of visual impairment and blindness with total medical expenditures, components of expenditures, days of informal care received, and health utility. Estimates accounting for the complex sampling design were based on regressions including confounders such as comorbidities and demographics. The aggregate economic impact was estimated by projecting average individual effects to the population of individuals with blindness and visual impairment.

Results  Blindness and visual impairment were significantly associated with higher medical care expenditures, a greater number of informal care days, and a decrease in health utility. The home care component of expenditures was most affected by blindness. The aggregate annual economic impact included $5.5 billion spent for medical care and the value of informal care as well as a loss of more than 209 000 quality-adjusted life years.

Conclusions  Visual impairment has a large effect on home care. Any economic analysis of prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation should account for the fraction of the annual monetary cost and loss of quality-adjusted life years that can be averted.

Author Affiliations: Department of Health Policy and Management, Health Services Research and Development Center, Bloomberg School of Public Health (Drs Frick and Wolff) and Department of Ophthalmology, Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology (Dr Gower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md; and Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Kempen).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Cost of Care for People With Impaired Vision in Australia
Keeffe et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:1377-1381.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

High-Rate Internal Pressurization of Human Eyes to Predict Globe Rupture
Bisplinghoff et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:520-523.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Universal Vision Care Coverage the Best Way to Get People to See Their Eye Care Providers?
Kymes and Frick
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:335-336.
FULL TEXT  

Prevalence and Causes of Low Vision and Blindness in an Urban Malay Population: The Singapore Malay Eye Study
Wong et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:1091-1099.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT