PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Clifford Goodman

Publications and source records attributed to Clifford Goodman.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

The burden of skin diseases: 2004 a joint project of the American Academy of Dermatology Association and the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

Skin disease is one of the top 15 groups of medical conditions for which prevalence and health care spending increased the most between 1987 and 2000, with approximately 1 of 3 people in the United States with a skin disease at any given time. Even so, a national data profile on skin disease has not been conducted since the late 1970s. This study closes the gap by estimating the prevalence, economic burden, and impact on quality of life for 22 leading categories of skin disease. The estimated annual cost of skin disease in 2004 was 39.3 billion dollars, including 29.1 billion dollars in direct medical costs (costs of health services and products) and 10.2 billion dollars in lost productivity costs (defined as costs related to consumption of medical care, costs associated with impaired ability to work, and lost future earning potential because of premature death). Based on a methodology of willingness to pay for symptom relief, the additional economic burden of skin disease on quality of life amounted to an estimated 56.2 billion dollars. Including the economic burden on quality of life, the total economic burden of skin disease to the US public in 2004 was approximately 96 billion dollars.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2002

The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastrointestinal (GI) and liver diseases inflict a heavy economic burden. Although the burden is considerable, current and accessible information on the prevalence, morbidity, and cost is sparse. This study was undertaken to estimate the economic burden of GI and liver disease in the United States for use by policy makers, health care providers, and the public. METHODS: Data were extracted from a number of publicly available and proprietary national databases to determine the prevalence, direct costs, and indirect costs for 17 selected GI and liver diseases. Indirect cost calculations were purposefully very conservative. These costs were compared with National Institutes of Health (NIH) research expenditures for selected GI and liver diseases. RESULTS: The most prevalent diseases were non-food-borne gastroenteritis (135 million cases/year), food-borne illness (76 million), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD; 19 million), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS; 15 million). The disease with the highest annual direct costs in the United States was GERD ($9.3 billion), followed by gallbladder disease ($5.8 billion), colorectal cancer ($4.8 billion), and peptic ulcer disease ($3.1 billion). The estimated direct costs for these 17 diseases in 1998 dollars were $36.0 billion, with estimated indirect costs of $22.8 billion. The estimated direct costs for all digestive diseases were $85.5 billion. Total NIH research expenditures were $676 million in 2000. CONCLUSIONS: GI and liver diseases exact heavy economic and social costs in the United States. Understanding the prevalence and costs of these diseases is important to help set priorities to reduce the burden of illness.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2002

Antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence regarding antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction and address implications for treatment strategy and health plan coverage policies for antidepressant medications. DATA SOURCES: Primary articles were identified by a MEDLINE and HealthSTAR search to identify English-language studies published between January 1986 and July 2000. Search terms included sexual dysfunction or sexual function and antidepressants, fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, citalopram, venlafaxine, nefazodone, bupropion, and mirtazapine. A cross-check of references cited in 10 published reviews yielded additional in-scope articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Approximately 200 articles were identified, including 8 randomized controlled trials and numerous open-label studies, case series, and case reports. Of the randomized controlled trials, only 5 were designed to evaluate the incidence of sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant treatment. Three additional randomized controlled trials included a structured assessment of sexual dysfunction within an efficacy trial. Data extraction excluded case reports, letters, and other limited study designs. A panel survey augmented published reports. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sexual dysfunction is a relatively common adverse effect of many of the antidepressants in common use today. Rates of sexual dysfunction observed in clinical practice may be higher than those reported in the product information for several agents. Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) appear to be the class of antidepressants most likely to cause sexual dysfunction. Published studies suggest that between 30% and 60% of SSRI-treated patients may experience some form of treatment-induced sexual dysfunction. Bupropion and nefazodone appear to be much less likely to cause sexual dysfunction (<or=10% of patients). Mirtazapine also appears to be associated with a low rate of sexual adverse effects. Panel results largely reflect the consensus of the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual dysfunction is a common adverse effect of antidepressant treatment. Physicians should monitor their patients for antidepressant-induced sexual adverse effects, as these may affect compliance with therapy and ultimate treatment success. In addition to the consequences for patient health and well-being, managed-care organizations should be concerned with sexually related adverse effects of antidepressants, insofar as additional healthcare resources may be required to treat depressed patients in whom these adverse effects arise.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of linezolid with oxacillin or vancomycin in the empiric treatment of cellulitis in US hospitals.

In this decision-model analysis, the authors compared overall clinical efficacy and total cost of empiric treatment of hospitalized cellulitis patients prescribed linezolid and oxacillin or vancomycin. The authors hypothesized that, when used appropriately, empiric linezolid treatment is an effective, potentially cost-saving antibiotic compared with treatment initiated with oxacillin or vancomycin. Data on efficacy, duration of antibiotic treatment, and hospital stay for first-line treatment success were obtained from two clinical trials. Other medical resource use data were obtained from an expert panel of clinicians. US hospital direct medical costs were determined using standard costing techniques. Overall efficacy and total cost of treatment were estimated for combinations of the risk of being infected with methicillin-resistant pathogens. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the impact of changes in major assumptions. Overall first-line efficacy is better for empiric treatment initiated with linezolid than with oxacillin or vancomycin across the spectrum of the risk of being infected with methicillin-resistant bacteria. The average total cost of treatment is lower for treatment initiated with linezolid than with vancomycin across the spectrum, or than with oxacillin when the risk of being infected with methicillin-resistant pathogens is 18.7 % or higher. Linezolid appears to be at least as effective as vancomycin or oxacillin for empiric treatment of hospitalized cellulitis patients. Linezolid is likely to be less costly compared with vancomycin at all resistance rates and with oxacillin when the risk of infection with methicillin-resistant pathogens is greater than 18.7 %, a resistance rate commonly seen in US hospitals.

Acetamides↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Savings in electronic medical record systems? Do it for the quality.

National policymakers are considering whether to make major long-term investments in electronic medical record (EMR) systems. The matter of rising health care costs is never far from any health care debate, and the prospect for EMR systems to decrease costs is a potential selling point. The paper by Richard Hillestad and colleagues presents a well-documented analysis of the potential costs, savings, and other benefits of widespread adoption of interoperable EMR systems. It focuses on the potential savings such systems could yield. Here I examine the main components of their argument and question whether such savings could ever be realized.

Cost Control↗