COVID-19 testing protocols to guide duration of isolation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions, and emerging variants continue to influence case rates across the US. As public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no laboratory test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts. METHODS: We conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty. RESULTS: Per 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs. CONCLUSIONS: A six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.

COVID-19 Testing Strategies for K-12 Schools in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Public health officials must provide guidance on operating schools safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from April-December 2021, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess six screening strategies for schools using SARS-CoV-2 antigen and PCR tests and varying screening frequencies for 1000 individuals. We estimated secondary infections averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost per QALY gained, and unnecessary school days missed per infection averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses for the more transmissible Omicron variant. Weekly antigen testing with PCR follow-up for positives was the most cost-effective option given moderate transmission, adding 0.035 QALYs at a cost of USD 320,000 per QALY gained in the base case (Reff = 1.1, prevalence = 0.2%). This strategy had the fewest needlessly missed school days (ten) per secondary infection averted. During widespread community transmission with Omicron (Reff = 1.5, prevalence = 5.8%), twice weekly antigen testing with PCR follow-up led to 2.02 QALYs gained compared to no test and cost the least (USD 187,300), with 0.5 needlessly missed schooldays per infection averted. In periods of moderate community transmission, weekly antigen testing with PCR follow up can help reduce transmission in schools with minimal unnecessary days of school missed. During widespread community transmission, twice weekly antigen screening with PCR confirmation is the most cost-effective and efficient strategy. Schools may benefit from resources to implement routine asymptomatic testing during surges; benefits decline as community transmission declines.

Indirect COVID-19 health effects and potential mitigating interventions: Cost-effectiveness framework.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to important indirect health and social harms in addition to deaths and morbidity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These indirect impacts, such as increased depression and substance abuse, can have persistent effects over the life course. Estimated health and cost outcomes of such conditions and mitigation strategies may guide public health responses. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness framework to evaluate societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to six health-related indirect effects of COVID-19 in California. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated for the adult population. We identified one evidence-based mitigation strategy for each condition and estimated QALYs gained, intervention costs, and savings from averted health-related harms. Model data were derived from literature review, public data, and expert opinion. RESULTS: Pandemic-associated increases in prevalence across these six conditions were estimated to lead to over 192,000 QALYs lost and to approach $7 billion in societal costs per million population over the life course of adults. The greatest costs and QALYs lost per million adults were due to adult depression. All mitigation strategies assessed saved both QALYs and costs, with five strategies achieving savings within one year. The greatest net savings over 10 years would be achieved by addressing depression ($242 million) and excessive alcohol use ($107 million). DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to significant human suffering and societal costs due to its indirect effects. Policymakers have an opportunity to reduce societal costs and health harms by implementing mitigation strategies.

Universal healthcare as pandemic preparedness: The lives and costs that could have been saved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fragmented and inefficient healthcare system in the United States leads to many preventable deaths and unnecessary costs every year. During a pandemic, the lives saved and economic benefits of a single-payer universal healthcare system relative to the status quo would be even greater. For Americans who are uninsured and underinsured, financial barriers to COVID-19 care delayed diagnosis and exacerbated transmission. Concurrently, deaths beyond COVID-19 accrued from the background rate of uninsurance. Universal healthcare would alleviate the mortality caused by the confluence of these factors. To evaluate the repercussions of incomplete insurance coverage in 2020, we calculated the elevated mortality attributable to the loss of employer-sponsored insurance and to background rates of uninsurance, summing with the increased COVID-19 mortality due to low insurance coverage. Incorporating the demography of the uninsured with age-specific COVID-19 and nonpandemic mortality, we estimated that a single-payer universal healthcare system would have saved about 212,000 lives in 2020 alone. We also calculated that US$105.6 billion of medical expenses associated with COVID-19 hospitalization could have been averted by a single-payer universal healthcare system over the course of the pandemic. These economic benefits are in addition to US$438 billion expected to be saved by single-payer universal healthcare during a nonpandemic year.

Interventions to reengage people living with HIV who are lost to follow-up from HIV treatment programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing services to facilitate engagement and retention in care of people living with HIV (PLWH) on antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) is critical to decrease HIV-related morbidity and mortality and HIV transmission. We systematically reviewed the literature for the effectiveness of implementation strategies to reestablish and subsequently retain clinical contact, improve viral load suppression, and reduce mortality among patients who had been lost to follow-up (LTFU) from HIV services. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched 7 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, ERIC, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO regional databases) and 3 conference abstract archives (CROI, IAC, and IAS) to find randomized trials and observational studies published through 13 April 2020. Eligible studies included those involving children and adults who were diagnosed with HIV, had initiated ART, and were subsequently lost to care and that reported at least one review outcome (return to care, retention, viral suppression, or mortality). Data were extracted by 2 reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We characterized reengagement strategies according to how, where, and by whom tracing was conducted. We explored effects, first, among all categorized as LTFU from the HIV program (reengagement program effect) and second among those found to be alive and out of care (reengagement contact outcome). We used random-effect models for meta-analysis and conducted subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity. Searches yielded 4,244 titles, resulting in 37 included studies (6 randomized trials and 31 observational studies). In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (N = 16), tracing most frequently involved identification of LTFU from the electronic medical record (EMR) and paper records followed by a combination of telephone calls and field tracing (including home visits), by a team of outreach workers within 3 months of becoming LTFU (N = 7), with few incorporating additional strategies to support reengagement beyond contact (N = 2). In high-income countries (HICs) (N = 21 studies), LTFU were similarly identified through EMR systems, at times matched with other public health records (N = 4), followed by telephone calls and letters sent by mail or email and conducted by outreach specialist teams. Home visits were less common (N = 7) than in LMICs, and additional reengagement support was similarly infrequent (N = 5). Overall, reengagement programs were able to return 39% (95% CI: 31% to 47%) of all patients who were characterized as LTFU (n = 29). Reengagement contact resulted in 58% (95% CI: 51% to 65%) return among those found to be alive and out of care (N = 17). In 9 studies that had a control condition, the return was higher among those in the reengagement intervention group than the standard of care group (RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.08 to 1.32, P < 0.001). There were insufficient data to generate pooled estimates of retention, viral suppression, or mortality after the return. CONCLUSIONS: While the types of interventions are markedly heterogeneity, reengagement interventions increase return to care. HIV programs should consider investing in systems to better characterize LTFU to identify those who are alive and out of care, and further research on the optimum time to initiate reengagement efforts after missed visits and how to best support sustained reengagement could improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Optimal strategies to screen health care workers for COVID-19 in the US: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care facilities poses a challenge against pandemic control. Health care workers (HCWs) have frequent and high-risk interactions with COVID-19 patients. We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal testing strategies for screening HCWs to inform strategic decision-making in health care settings. METHODS: We modeled the number of new infections, quality-adjusted life years lost, and net costs related to six testing strategies including no test. We applied our model to four strata of HCWs, defined by the presence and timing of symptoms. We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in inputs. RESULTS: When screening recently symptomatic HCWs, conducting only a PCR test is preferable; it saves costs and improves health outcomes in the first week post-symptom onset, and costs $83,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained in the second week post-symptom onset. When screening HCWs in the late clinical disease stage, none of the testing approaches is cost-effective and thus no testing is preferable, yielding $11 and 0.003 new infections per 10 HCWs. For screening asymptomatic HCWs, antigen testing is preferable to PCR testing due to its lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCR and antigen testing are beneficial strategies to identify infected HCWs and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings. IgG tests' value depends on test timing and immunity characteristics, however it is not cost-effective in a low prevalence setting. As the context of the pandemic evolves, our study provides insight to health-care decision makers to keep the health care workforce safe and transmissions low.

Optimal strategies to screen health care workers for COVID-19 in the US: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care facilities poses a challenge against pandemic control. Health care workers (HCWs) have frequent and high-risk interactions with COVID-19 patients. We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal testing strategies for screening HCWs to inform strategic decision-making in health care settings. METHODS: We modeled the number of new infections, quality-adjusted life years lost, and net costs related to six testing strategies including no tests. We applied our model to four strata of HCWs, defined by the presence and timing of symptoms. We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in inputs. RESULTS: When screening recently symptomatic HCWs, conducting only a PCR test is preferable; it saves costs and improves health outcomes in the first week post-symptom onset, and costs $83,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained in the second week post-symptom onset. When screening HCWs in the late clinical disease stage, none of the testing approaches is cost-effective and thus no testing is preferable, yielding $11 and 0.003 new infections per 10 HCWs. For screening asymptomatic HCWs, antigen testing is preferable to PCR testing due to its lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCR and antigen testing are beneficial strategies to identify infected HCWs and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings. IgG testing clinical value depends on test timing and immunity characteristics, however is not cost-effective in a low prevalence setting. As the context of the pandemic evolves, our study provides insight to health-care decision makers to keep the health care workforce safe and transmissions low.

Pricing Universal Health Care: How Much Would The Use Of Medical Care Rise?

The return of a Democratic administration to the White House, coupled with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-induced contractions of job-based insurance, may reignite debate over public coverage expansion and its costs. Decades of research demonstrate that uninsured people and people with copays and deductibles use less care than people with first-dollar coverage. Hence, most economic analyses of Medicare for All proposals and other coverage expansions project increased utilization and associated costs. We review the utilization surges that such analyses have predicted and contrast them with the more modest utilization increments observed after past coverage expansions in the US and other affluent nations. The discrepancy between predicted and observed utilization changes suggests that analysts underestimate the role of supply-side constraints-for example, the finite number of physicians and hospital beds. Our review of the utilization effects of past coverage expansions suggests that a first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10 percent and hospital use by 0-3 percent. Modest administrative savings could offset the costs of such increases.