Cited by 90Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Implications of comorbidity for primary care costs in the UK: a retrospective observational study

Open access
Brilleman, Samuel L, Purdy, Sarah, Salisbury, Chris, Windmeijer, Frank, Gravelle, Hugh, Hollinghurst, Sandra·2013·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is increasingly common in primary care. The cost implications for patient care and budgetary management are unclear. AIM: To investigate whether caring for patients with specific disease combinations increases or decreases primary care costs compared with treating separate patients with one condition each. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using data on 86 100 patients in the General Practice Research Database. METHOD: Annual primary care cost was estimated for each patient including consultations, medication, and investigations. Patients with comorbidity were defined as those with a current diagnosis of more than one chronic condition in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Multiple regression modelling was used to identify, for three age groups, disease combinations that increase (cost-increasing) or decrease (cost-limiting) cost compared with treating each condition separately. RESULTS: Twenty per cent of patients had at least two chronic conditions. All conditions were found to be both cost-increasing and cost-limiting when co-occurring with other conditions except dementia, which is only cost-limiting. Depression is the most important cost-increasing condition when co-occurring with a range of conditions. Hypertension is cost-limiting, particularly when co-occurring with other cardiovascular conditions. CONCLUSION: Three categories of comorbidity emerge, those that are: cost-increasing, mainly due to a combination of depression with physical comorbidity; cost-limiting because treatment for the conditions overlap; and cost-limiting for no apparent reason but possibly because of inadequate care. These results can contribute to efficient and effective management of chronic conditions in primary care.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp13x665242

Cites

26 of 26 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?

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

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brilleman, S. L., Purdy, S., Salisbury, C., Windmeijer, F., Gravelle, H., & Hollinghurst, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2013-04
Volume
63
Issue
609
Pages
e274-e282
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2089455977
Cited by
87
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2010-25-005)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H005331/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
comorbidities, primary care costs, chronic disease, depression, dementia, hypertension, cardiovascular conditions, drug costs, consultation, Clinical Practice Research Datalink
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Health Expenditures, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Cost of Illness

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