Cited by 267Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The Value of Delaying Alzheimer’s Disease Onset

Open access
Zissimopoulos, Julie, Crimmins, Eileen, St.Clair, Patricia·2015·Forum for Health Economics and Policy

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) extracts a heavy societal toll. The value of medical advances that delay onset of AD could be significant. Using data from nationally representative samples from the Health and Retirement Study (1998–2008) and Aging Demographics and Memory Study (2001–2009), we estimate the prevalence and incidence of AD and the formal and informal health care costs associated with it. We use microsimulation to project future prevalence and costs of AD under different treatment scenarios. We find from 2010 to 2050, the number of individuals ages 70+ with AD increases 153%, from 3.6 to 9.1 million, and annual costs increase from $307 billion ($181B formal, $126B informal costs) to $1.5 trillion. 2010 annual per person costs were $71,303 and double by 2050. Medicare and Medicaid are paying 75% of formal costs. Medical advances that delay onset of AD for 5 years result in 41% lower prevalence and 40% lower cost of AD in 2050. For one cohort of older individuals, who would go on to acquire AD, a 5-year delay leads to 2.7 additional life years (about 5 AD-free), slightly higher formal care costs due to longer life but lower informal care costs for a total value of $511,208 per person. We find Medical advances delaying onset of AD generate significant economic and longevity benefits. The findings inform clinicians, policymakers, businesses and the public about the value of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of AD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/fhep-2014-0013

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A second study projected that for individuals age 70 and older in 2050, a one-year delay in Alzheimer's onset would reduce total health care spending for people with Alzheimer's by 14%, a three-year delay by 27%, and a five-year delay by 39%.

    “For individuals age 70 and older, the study projected that in 2050 there would be a 14% reduction in total health care spending for people with Alzheimer's from a one-year delay, a 27% reduction from a three-year delay and a 39% reduction from a fiveyear delay.804”

    From 2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2023) · cites this paper as [804]

    The Results section (Table 2 discussion; page not available in our copy) projects savings in 2050 for people aged 70 and older under all three delays. It reports a 15% reduction in total costs for a one-year delay, rather than 14%; its stated savings for three- and five-year delays are approximately 28% and 40% of the $1.5 trillion baseline, rather than 27% and 39%. Its total-cost measure also includes informal care, not just health care spending. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A five-year delay in onset would reduce total health care spending for people age 70 and older with Alzheimer's by 39% by 2050.

    “a 39% reduction from a five‐year delay by 2050. 970”

    From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [970]

    The Results (Table 2) project lower costs in 2050 after a five-year delay, but the 39% reduction applies to formal costs, not total costs. The Discussion and Conclusion describe the reduction in total societal costs as about 40%. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A one-year delay in onset would reduce total health care spending for people age 70 and older with Alzheimer's by 14% by 2050.

    “another study projected a 14% reduction in total health care spending for people age 70 and older with Alzheimer's from a one‐year delay”

    From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [970]

    The Results section reports that a one-year delay would reduce total costs for people aged 70+ with Alzheimer’s by 2050, but gives the reduction as 15%, not 14%. Its total includes both formal health care and informal care costs, so calling it total health care spending also obscures the measure used. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A delay in Alzheimer's onset may increase total lifetime per capita health care spending due to longer life, although the additional health care costs may be offset by lower informal care costs.

    “Beyond the single-year costs, the study also found that a delay in onset may increase total lifetime per capita health care spending due to longer life associated with delaying the onset of dementia, although the additional health care costs may be offset by lower informal care costs.”

    From 2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2023) · cites this paper as [804]

  • A delay in onset may increase total lifetime per capita health care spending due to longer life associated with delaying the onset of dementia, although the additional health care costs may be offset by lower informal care costs.

    “a delay in onset may increase total lifetime per capita health care spending due to longer life associated with delaying the onset of dementia, although the additional health care costs may be offset by lower informal care costs.”

    From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [970]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zissimopoulos, J., Crimmins, E., & St.Clair, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Corresponding author
Zissimopoulos, Julie
Venue
Forum for Health Economics and Policy
Published
2014-11-04
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
25-39
ISSN
  • 1558-9544 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-6191
OpenAlex
W2031148567
Cited by
267
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forum for Health Economics & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R56AG045135, P30AG017265, P30AG043073, U01AG009740, P30AG024968)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, prevalence projections, health care costs, informal care costs, microsimulation, Medicare and Medicaid, life expectancy, older adults

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review