Abstract
Medical expenditure data typically exhibit certain characteristics that must be accounted for when deriving cost estimates. First, it is common for a small percentage of patients to incur extremely high costs compared to other patients, resulting in a distribution of expenses that is highly skewed to the right. Second, the assumption of homoscedasticity (constant variance) is often violated because expense data exhibit variability that increases as the mean expense increases. In this paper, we describe the use of the generalized linear model for estimating costs, and discuss several advantages that this technique has over traditional methods of cost analysis. We provide an example, applying this technique to the problem of determining an incidence-based estimate of the cost of care for patients with diabetes who suffer a stroke.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. K. Blough, C. Madden and M. Hornbrook, “Risk Modeling Using Generalized Linear Models.” Journal of Health Economics 18: pp. 153-171, 1999.
D. O. Clark, M. Von Korff, K. Saunders, W.M. Baluch and G.E. Simon, “A Chronic Disease Score with Empirically Derived Weights,” Medical Care 33: pp. 783-795, 1995.
N. Duan, W. G. Manning Jr., C. N. Morris and J. P. Newhouse, “A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 1: pp. 115-126, 1993.
N. Duan, “Smearing Estimate: A Nonparametric Retransformation Method,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 78: pp. 605-610, 1983.
N. Duan, W. G. Manning Jr., C. N. Morris and J.P. Newhouse. “Choosing Between the Sample-Selection Model and the Multi-part Model,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 2: pp. 283-289, 1984.
R. A. Dudley, F. E. Harrell, L. R. Smith, D. B. Mark, R. M. Califf, D. B. Pryor, D. Glower, J. Lipscomb and M. Hlatky. “Comparison of analytic models for estimating the effect of clinical factors on the cost of coronary artery bypass graft surgery.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: pp. 261-271, 1983.
P. Fenn, A. McGuire, V. Phillips, M. Backhouse and D. Jones. “The analysis of censored treatment cost data in economic evaluation.” Medical Care 33: pp. 851-863, 1995.
S. Greenfield, W. Rogers, M. Mangotich, M. F. Carney and A. R. Tarlov. “Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialities”. Results from the medical outcomes study, 274: pp. 1436-44, 1995.
F. E. Harrell and R. L. Smith. “Use of Cox semiparametric regression model for predicting costs, charges, and length of stay.” Duke University, 1995.
T. J. Hastie and R. J. Tibshirani. Generalized Additive Models, (Chapman and Hall, London), 1990.
J. W. Hay and R. J. Olsen. “Let Them Eat Cake: A Note on Comparing Alternative Models of the Demand for Medical Care,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 2: pp. 279-282, 1984.
G. Kleinbaum, L. L. Kupper and H. Morgenstern. Epidemiologic Research, (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York), 1982.
W. G. Manning. “The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem,” Journal of Health Economics 17: pp. 283-295, 1998.
P. McCullagh, J. A. Nelder. Generalized Linear Models, (2nd ed.) (Chapman and Hall, London), 1989.
J. Mullahy. “Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health economics,” Journal of Health Economics 17: pp. 247-281, 1998.
S. Ramsey, K. Newton, D. Blough, D. McCulloch, N. Sandhu and E. Wagner. “Patient-Level Estimates of the Cost of Complications in Diabetes in a Managed Care Population.” Pharmacoeconomics 16: pp. 285-295, 1999.
N. Rice and A. Jones. “Multilevel models and health economics.” Health Economics; 6: pp. 561-575, 1997.
SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.12 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blough, D.K., Ramsey, S.D. Using Generalized Linear Models to Assess Medical Care Costs. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 1, 185–202 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012597123667
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012597123667