Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 22 August 2007

Abstract

This cost-of-illness analysis based on information from 1.549 patients in The Netherlands is part of a Europe-wide study on the costs of multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective was to analyze the costs and quality of life (QOL) related to the level of disease severity and progression. Patients from three specialized MS centres participated in the survey by answering a mail questionnaire (response rate, 52%). In addition to details on the disease (type of disease, relapses, level of functional disability), the questionnaire asked for information on all resource consumption, medical, non-medical, work absence, early retirement and informal care as well as QOL (expressed as utility). The mean age of the cohort was 47 years, and 7.6% of patients were 65 years of age or more. Forty-eight percent of patients had mild disease [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0–3], 40% moderate disease (EDSS score of 4–6.5) and 11% severe disease (EDSS score of 7 and above). The mean EDSS score in the sample was 3.9 (median 4.0), with a utility of 0.61. Costs and utility are highly correlated with disease severity. Workforce participation decreases from around 75 to 80% in early disease to less than 5% in the very late stages. Hospitalization is very infrequent in early disease, representing less than € 500 per year for patients at EDSS scores below 6, but increases steeply for patients at an EDSS score of 7 and above. Ambulatory care increases fivefold between early and late disease, while services rise from basically no cost to almost € 8.000 per year at an EDSS score of 7 and € 19.000 per year at EDSS scores of 8–9. Productivity losses are multiplied by 10 in late disease, while informal care increases from € 300 per year at EDSS scores of 0–1 to nearly € 15.000 per year at EDSS scores of 8–9. Hence, total mean costs per patient are driven essentially by the distribution of the severity levels in the sample, increasing from € 9.300 per year at EDSS scores of 0–1 to € 50.000 per year at an EDSS score of 7 and € 78.000 per year at EDSS scores of 8–9. The same is true for utility, which decreases from 0.85 to 0.05 as the disease becomes severe. However, the utility loss compared to the age- and gender-matched general population is high at all levels of the disease (0.25 at an EDSS score of 2 to 0.4 at EDSS scores of 5–6), leading to an estimated annual loss of 0.24 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient. Relapses for patients with an EDSS score below 5 are associated with a cost of around € 2.800 and a utility loss of 0.15 during the quarter in which they occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Fredrikson S, Jönsson B (2006) Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol ( In press)

  2. Koopmanschap M, Rutten F, Vanineveld B, Vanroijen L (1995) The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 14: 171–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dean G (1994) How many people in the world have multiple sclerosis? Neuroepidemiology 13: 107

    Google Scholar 

  4. Minderhoud J, Zwanniken C (1994) Increasing prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis: an epidemiological study in the province of Groningen, The Netherlands. In: Lauer W (ed) Multiple sclerosis: an epidemiological update. Leuchtturm, Darmstadt, pp 113–121

  5. Pugliatti M, Rosati G, Carton H et al. (2006) The prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurol 13: 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurtzke J (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis and expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33: 1444–1452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prange A, Lauer K, Poser S et al. (1986) Epidemiological aspects of multiple sclerosis: a comparative study of four centers in Europe. Neuroepidemiology 5: 71–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1995) A social tariff for EuroQol. results from a UK general population survey. Research Report 138 (York, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

  10. Hakkaart-Vanroyen L, Hoeijenbos M, Regeer E, Al E (2004) The societal costs and quality of life of patients suffering from bipolar disorder in The Netherlands. Acta Psychiatr Scand 110: 383–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ostenbrink J, Bouwmans C, Koopmansschap M (2004) Handleiding voor Kostenonderzoek. iMTA Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, in opdracht van College voor Zorgvoorzieningen

  12. Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Jönsson B (2000) Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis – a cross-sectional study in Sweden. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 361. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, Sweden

  13. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Smala A, Jönsson B, Group Gms (2001) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2: 60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, Jönsson B (2000) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 398. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, Sweden

  15. Eichler H, Kong S, Gerth W et al. (2004) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7: 518–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koopmanschap M, Vanineveld B (1992) Towards a new approach for estimating indirect cost of disease. Soc Sci Med 34: 1005–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johannesson M, Karlsson G (1997) The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ 16: 249–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liljas B (1998) How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 13: 1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pauly M, Nicholson S, Xu J et al (2002) A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Econ 11: 221–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicholson S, Pauly M, Polsky D et al. (2006) Measuring the effects of work loss on productivity with team production. Health Econ 15: 111–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Contributions:

Bert Anten (Maaslandziekenhuis, Sittard); Mattias Ekman (Stockholm Health Economics, Sweden); Peter JH Jongen (MS Centre, Nijmegen); Chris Polman (Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam); Bernard Uitdehaag (Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam)

Acknowledgements

Leona Hakkaart-VanRoijen (iMTA, Erasmus University, Rotterdam); Ulrika Lilja (Stockholm Health Economics, Sweden)

Conflict of interest

No information supplied.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisela Kobelt.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0072-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kobelt, G., Berg, J. & Lindgren , P. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 7 (Suppl 2), 55–64 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0378-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0378-6

Keywords

Navigation