Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #106574

Kevin D. Frick, PhD¹, Gretchen A. Jacobson, MS², Robert Massof, PhD³, and William Park, OD³. (1) Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Rm. 606, Baltimore, MD 21205, 410-614-4018, kfrick@jhsph.edu, (2) School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, (3) Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 550 Building, 6th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205

Objective: While net benefit and cost-effectiveness studies are represented in the eye care literature, the number of estimates of the burden of illness or cost of illness in the eye care literature has been limited, and those that have been conducted have generally relied on assumptions about low vision and blind patients' ability to be economically productive and the quantity of informal care. These two types of indirect costs are critical in conducting cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Methods: In 2004, consecutive new patients at the Low Vision and Visual Rehabilitation Service at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were asked to participate in a survey including questions about indirect costs. This study summarizes the results for the first 140 patients to participate in the survey.

Results: 18.7 percent were working, and of these 27 percent missed some time because of their health and 55 percent were less productive that they would have been otherwise because of their health. 75 percent of patients indicated that they were less productive at non-work activities than they would have been if not for their health. 68 percent received informal care. Average annual indirect costs for this population are estimated at $21,200. If this were representative of all low vision patients, indirect costs alone in the United States would be $50 billion.

Conclusion: Given the magnitude of indirect costs, the inclusion of a comprehensive set of indirect cost measures in economic burden, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit studies related to low vision is important in the future.

Learning Objectives:

• To understand the difference between direct and indirect costs.
• To understand the types of indirect costs.
• To understand the indirect costs that low vision rehabilitation patients experience prior to rehabilitation.
• To understand the indirect costs that may be attributable to low vision itself rather than comorbidities that low vision patients have.

Keywords: Cost Issues, Vision Care

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Recorded presentation