Current Urology Reports

, 12:358 | Cite as

The Financial Burden of Stress Urinary Incontinence Among Women in the United States

  • Erin C. Chong
  • Aqsa A. Khan
  • Jennifer T. Anger
Article

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common medical problem affecting 25% to 50% of women in the United States. This article reviews the literature on the current systems- and population-based costs of management of SUI in women. A PubMed search was conducted to seek studies examining the cost of various management options. Both nonsurgical and surgical management can effectively improve symptoms of SUI at a wide spectrum of costs. Over $12 billion are spent annually, an amount that continues to grow. Patients pay out-of-pocket for 70% of conservative management, amounting to a significant individual financial burden. Systems-based cost of SUI management continues to rise with the aging population. Costs to both individuals and systems may be mitigated if more patients are treated with intent to cure and as surgical management transitions from inpatient to outpatient procedures.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence SUI Financial burden Cost Female urology Women’s health Incontinence management Quality-adjusted life ears QALY 

Notes

Disclosures

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Minassian V, Stewart WF, Wood GC. Urinary incontinence in women variation in prevalence estimates and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:324–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peyrat L, Haillot O, Bruyere F, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of urinary incontinence in young and middle-aged women. BJU Int. 2002;89:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nygaard IE, Heit M. Stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):607–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rogers R. Urinary stress incontinence in women. NEJM. 2008;358:1029–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, et al. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPICONT Study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1150–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fultz N, Burgio K, Diokno A, et al. Burden of stress urinary incontinence for community-dwelling women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1275–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortes E, Kelleher C. Costs of female urinary incontinence. Women’s Health Med. 2005;2(6):3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Imamura M, Abrams P, Bain C, et al. Review and economic modelling of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence. Health Technol Assess. 2010:14(40):1–215. This study provides a comprehensive review of costs of nonsurgical treatment of SUI. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anger J, Saigal C, Madison R, et al. Increasing costs of urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. J Urol. 2006;176:247–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson L, Brown JS, Shin GP, et al. Annual direct cost of urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:398–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Subak LL, Brown JS, Kraus SR, Diagnostic Aspects of Incontinence Study (DAISy) Group, et al. The “Costs” of urinary incontinence for women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(4):908–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Subak L, Brubaker L, Chai T, et al. High costs of urinary incontinence among women electing surgery to treat stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):899–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Subak L, Van Den Eeden S, Thom D, et al. Urinary incontinence in women: direct costs of routine care. Am J Obset Gynecol. 2007;197:596.e1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacklin P, Duckett J, Renganathan A. Analytic model comparing the cost utility of TVT versus duloxetine in women with urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:977–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lier D, Ross S, Tang S for the Calgary Women’s Pelvic Health Research Group. Trans-obturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cost utility analysis. BJOG. 2011;118:550–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman R. Initial management of stress urinary incontinence: pelvic floor muscle training and duloxetine. BJOG. 2006;113 Suppl 1:10–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, et al.: Urinary incontinence treatment network. Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2010:362;2066–76. This multicenter randomized clinical trial compared intermediate-term (1-year) outcomes of retropubic versus transobturator synthetic slings. The two procedures were found to be equivalent with respect to objective cure rates. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Labrie J, van der Graaf Y, Buskens E, et al. Protocol for physiotherapy OR TVT randomised efficacy trial (PORTRET): a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of the tension free vaginal tape versus pelvic floor muscle training in women with symptomatic moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ankardal M, Jarbrink K, Milsom I, et al. Comparison of health care costs for open Burch colposuspension, laparoscopic colposuspension and tension-free vaginal tape in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26:761–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berman C, Kreder K. Comparative cost-analysis of collagen injection and fascia lata sling cystourethropexy for the treatment of type III incontinence in women. J Urol. 1997;157:122–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin C. Chong
    • 1
  • Aqsa A. Khan
    • 1
  • Jennifer T. Anger
    • 2
  1. 1.David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterBeverly HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations