Comparing SSRI Treatment Costs for Depression Using Retrospective Claims Data: The Role of Nonrandom Selection and Skewed Data

Abstract

Background and Objectives Since conventional randomized clinical trials often do not reflect the real world circumstances of prescribing behavior and patient outcomes, the use of retrospective administrative claims databases (RACD) has become more common in treatment cost comparisons among alternative pharmaceutical compounds. Several recent RACD studies have compared treatment costs for depressed patients prescribed SSRIs such as fluoxetine, sertraline and paroxetine. These cost comparisons have reached mixed conclusions. To begin to explain and reconcile the mixed SSRI cost comparison evidence, we undertake a variety of alternative multivariate analyses using a publicly available RACD. Methods and Data The 1995 to 1996 data encompasses a time period when all three SSRIs had become well-established agents. We report and compare results from multivariate linear regressions, logistic regressions, ordered probits and sample selectivity models, and examine robustness when adjustments are made for outlier observations and skewed distributions. Results and Conclusions While choice of initial SSRI is nonrandom, the effect of sample selectivity on total depression-related and total health care expenditure is neutral across SSRIs. Although most cost measures are numerically greatest for fluoxetine, depression-related outpatient and hospitalization costs do not significantly differ by choice of initial SSRI. These findings are robust to alternative assumptions, specifications, and procedures. Antidepressant medication costs, however, are significantly higher when fluoxetine is the initial SSRI rather than sertraline or paroxetine, reflecting the larger proportion of fluoxetine patients prescribed a daily dosage of two or more capsules. Both total depression-related and total health care log–transformed costs are significantly lower for sertraline than fluoxetine.