Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with considerable economic burden, the full extent of which can be challenging to quantify from a societal perspective.
Objective
To estimate the total societal cost of AD in the United States by integrating direct costs, out-of-pocket expenses, indirect costs to caregivers, costs to business, and intangible/emotional costs to patients/caregivers across the disease continuum from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to severe AD.
Methods
Intangible costs were derived from a patient-caregiver survey. Other indirect costs were from a Health and Retirement Study (HRS) analysis; direct costs were from the literature. We estimated integrated societal cost per patient per month (PPPM) for MCI and AD (mild/moderate/severe). Negative binomial regression of indirect costs examined associations with severity, adjusting for baseline characteristics.
Results
Integrated societal costs PPPM were $4176 for MCI and $7873 for AD ($6,634, $7,291, and $9287 for mild, moderate, and severe, respectively); intangible costs represented 24–32% of societal costs. Indirect costs were higher with AD versus MCI (p < 0.001); married status and nursing home residence were associated with lower indirect costs in AD.
Conclusions
Intangible costs are a major driver, besides direct costs, of the integrated societal cost of MCI/AD. Societal costs are higher with more severe AD.
2024 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement2024; 20: 3708–3821.
2.
FreedmanVAPattersonSECornmanJC, et al.A day in the life of caregivers to older adults with and without dementia: comparisons of care time and emotional health. Alzheimers Dement2022; 18: 1650–1661.
3.
Tahami MonfaredAASternYDooganS, et al.Stakeholder insights in Alzheimer’s disease: natural language processing of social media conversations. J Alzheimers Dis2022; 89: 695–708.
4.
El-HayekYHWileyREKhouryCP, et al.Tip of the iceberg: assessing the global socioeconomic costs of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias and strategic implications for stakeholders. J Alzheimers Dis2019; 70: 323–341.
5.
ColucciLBoscoMFasanaroAM, et al.Alzheimer’s disease costs: what we know and what we should take into account. J Alzheimers Dis2014; 42: 1311–1324.
6.
SkariaAP. The economic and societal burden of Alzheimer disease: managed care considerations. Am J Manag Care2022; 28: S188–S196.
7.
Tahami MonfaredAAKhachatryanAHummelN, et al.Assessing quality of life, economic burden, and independence across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum using patient-caregiver dyad surveys. J Alzheimers Dis2024; 99: 191–206.
8.
KigoziJJowettSLewisM, et al.The estimation and inclusion of presenteeism costs in applied economic evaluation: a systematic review. Value Health2017; 20: 496–506.
9.
Tahami MonfaredAAByrnesMJWhiteLA, et al.The humanistic and economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurol Ther2022; 11: 525–551.
10.
LongKHSmithCPetersenR, et al.Medical and nursing home costs: from cognitively unimpaired through dementia. Alzheimers Dement2022; 18: 393–407.
11.
SmithSCLampingDLBanerjeeS, et al.Development of a new measure of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: DEMQOL. Psychol Med2007; 37: 737–746.
FarinaNFeeneyYHughesL, et al.Excel calculator for the DEMQOL, DEMQOL-Proxy and DEMQOL-CH patient reported output measure. Brighton, United Kingdom: University of Sussex. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25377/sussex.14199326.v1 (2021, accessed 8 October 2024).
14.
HoefmanRJvan ExelNJALooren de JongS, et al.A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: measuring the impact of informal care giving. Qual Life Res2011; 20: 875–887.
15.
BrouwerWBFvan ExelNJAvan GorpB, et al.The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res2006; 15: 1005–1021.
16.
SternYAlbertSMSanoM, et al.Assessing patient dependence in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol1994; 49: M216–M222.
17.
ZhuCWBruinsmaBGSternY. Utility of the dependence scale in dementia: validity, meaningfulness, and health economic considerations. Alzheimers Res Ther2018; 10: 78.
18.
ReillyMCZbrozekASDukesEM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics1993; 4: 353–365.
19.
Health and Retirement Study, public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI, https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/ (2023, accessed 8 October 2024).
Tahami MonfaredAAHummelNChandakA, et al.Assessing out-of-pocket expenses and indirect costs for the Alzheimer disease continuum in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2023; 29: 1065–1077.
22.
Health and Retirement Study. RAND HRS longitudinal file (1994–2018). Sensitive dataset. Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). Data downloaded on March 16, 2021.
23.
Health and Retirement Study. ADAMS data (2001–2009). Public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). Data downloaded on March 16, 2021.
24.
LindgrenNRinneJOPalviainenT, et al.Prevalence and correlates of dementia and mild cognitive impairment classified with different versions of the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2019; 34: 1883–1891.
25.
RobinsonRLRentzDMAndrewsJS, et al.Costs of early stage Alzheimer’s disease in the United States: cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study (GERAS-US). J Alzheimers Dis2020; 75: 437–450.
26.
RappTAndrieuSChartierF, et al.Resource use and cost of Alzheimer’s disease in France: 18-month results from the GERAS observational study. Value Health2018; 21: 295–303.
27.
Lenox-SmithAReedCLebrecJ, et al.Resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with Alzheimer’s disease: 18-month UK results from the GERAS observational study. BMC Geriatr2016; 16: 195.
28.
MulhernBRowenDBrazierJ, et al.Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess2013; 17: v–xv, 1–140.
29.
HoefmanRJvan ExelJBrouwerWBF. Measuring care-related quality of life of caregivers for use in economic evaluations: carerQol tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US. Pharmacoeconomics2017; 35: 469–478.
30.
JiangRJanssenMFBPickardAS. US Population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Qual Life Res2021; 30: 803–816.
KoppelR. Alzheimer’s disease: The Costs to U.S. Businesses in 2002. Washington, D.C: Alzheimer’s Association, 2002, accessed 21 October 2024.
33.
Braakman-JansenLMATaalEKuperIH, et al.Productivity loss due to absenteeism and presenteeism by different instruments in patients with RA and subjects without RA. Rheumatology (Oxford)2012; 51: 354–361.
OlazaránJAgüera-OrtizLArgimónJM, et al.Costs and quality of life in community-dwelling patients with Alzheimer’s disease in Spain: results from the GERAS II observational study. Int Psychogeriatr2017; 29: 2081–2093.
36.
HeeringaSGConnorJ. Technical description of the health and retirement study sample design. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/sites/default/files/biblio/HRSSAMP_0.pdf (1995, accessed 13 September 2024).
Akbarzadeh BaghbanAPourhoseingholiAZayeriF, et al.Zero inflated statistical count models for analysing the costs imposed by GERD and dyspepsia. Arab J Gastroenterol2013; 14: 165–168.
39.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Medical care, https://data.bls.gov/toppicks?survey=cu (accessed 13 September 2024).
40.
WundesABrownTBienenEJ, et al.Contribution of intangible costs to the economic burden of multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ2010; 13: 626–632.
41.
LakdawallaDNDoshiJAGarrisonLP, et al.Defining elements of value in health care—A health economics approach: an ISPOR special task force report [3]. Value Health2018; 21: 131–139.
42.
PradosMJLiuYJunH, et al.Projecting the long-term societal value of a disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Alzheimers Dement2022; 18: 142–151.
43.
HurdMDMartorellPDelavandeA, et al.Monetary costs of dementia in the United States. N Engl J Med2013; 368: 1326–1334.
44.
ChandlerJMYeWMiX, et al.Potential impact of slowing disease progression in early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease on patient quality of life, caregiver time, and total societal costs: estimates based on findings from GERAS-US study. J Alzheimers Dis2024; 100: 563–578.
45.
NandiACountsNBrökerJ, et al.Cost of care for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States: 2016 to 2060. NPJ Aging2024; 10: 1–8.
46.
FrechFHLiGJudayT, et al.Economic impact of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in the United States. J Prev Alzheimers Dis2024; 11: 983–991.
47.
KelleyASMcGarryKGorgesR, et al.The burden of health care costs for patients with dementia in the last 5 years of life. Ann Intern Med2015; 163: 729–736.
48.
GillespiePO’SheaECullinanJ, et al.Longitudinal costs of caring for people with Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr2015; 27: 847–856.
49.
MarešováPDolejsJMohelskaH, et al.Cost of treatment and care for people with Alzheimer’s disease: a meta- analysis. Curr Alzheimer Res2019; 16: 1245–1253.
50.
CarlewARFatimaHLivingstoneJR, et al.Cognitive assessment via telephone: a scoping review of instruments. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2020; 35: 1215–1233.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
