The direct and indirect costs of epilepsy in Poland estimates for 2014-2016 years

Digital measures in epilepsy in low-resourced environments

INTRODUCTION

Digital measures and digital health-care delivery have been rarely implemented in lower-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), contributing to worsening global disparities and inequities. Sustainable ways to implement and use digital approaches will help to improve time to access, management, and quality of life in persons with epilepsy, goals that remain unreachable in under-resourced communities. As under-resourced environments differ in human and economic resources, no one approach will be appropriate to all LMICs.

AREAS COVERED

Digital health and tools to monitor and measure digital endpoints and metrics of quality of life will need to be developed or adapted to the specific needs of under-resourced areas. Portable technologies may partially address the urban-rural divide. Careful delineation of stakeholders and their engagement and alignment in all efforts is critically important if these initiatives are to be successfully sustained. Privacy issues, neglected in many regions globally, must be purposefully addressed.

EXPERT OPINION

Epilepsy care in under-resourced environments has been limited by the lack of relevant technologies for diagnosis and treatment. Digital biomarkers, and investigative technological advances, may finally make it feasible to sustainably improve care delivery and ultimately quality of life including personalized epilepsy care.

Economic and social cost of epilepsy in Poland: 5-year analysis

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million people around the world. As a common and chronic disease generates a high cost burden for healthcare system and patients.

AIM

We aimed to determine the most current direct and indirect costs of epilepsy in Poland from the social perspective for the years 2014-2018, to analyze the changes of expenditures over time, indicate trends and to determine key cost-drivers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Direct and indirect costs using a top-down approach were estimated based on the public institutions' data for the ICD-10 codes G40 and G41. Direct costs included pharmacotherapy, hospitalizations, outpatient specialist care and rehabilitation. A human capital approach was used to estimate loss of productivity due to sick leaves and long-term inability to work.

RESULTS

Annual total direct and indirect costs related to epilepsy accounted for EUR 410 million in 2014 and decreased in subsequent years to EUR 361 million in 2018. The indirect costs were dominant (76-83% of total costs) and in the majority related to the long-term absenteeism (87-92% of total indirect costs). In 2014-2018, patients with epilepsy generated EUR 341 million to EUR 282 million of indirect costs. Annual direct costs for patients with epilepsy were EUR 69 million in 2014 and increased to EUR 80 million in 2018. The biggest expenses were the costs of drugs (> 50%) and hospitalizations (~ 40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Epilepsy is an expensive disorder in terms of consumption of resources and social costs. Decision-makers should take it under special consideration.