Cost-Effectiveness of Cerebrolysin after Ischemic Stroke: Secondary Analysis of the CARS Study.

The cost-effectiveness of Cerebrolysin as an add-on therapy for moderate-severe acute ischemic stroke is a topic that remains understudied. This study aims to address this gap by performing a comprehensive cost-utility analysis using both deterministic and probabilistic methods from a payer perspective and within the Romanian inpatient care setting. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using partial individual patient data from the 2016 Cerebrolysin and Recovery After Stroke (CARS) trial, utilizing three different health state valuation models. Cost data was extracted from actual acute care costs reported by Romanian public hospitals for reimbursement purposes for patients included in the CARS study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each treatment arm for the duration of the clinical trial. Deterministic analysis based on sample mean values indicates Cerebrolysin would be cost-effective at a threshold between roughly 18.8 and 29.9 thousand EUR, depending on valuation techniques. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicate an 80% chance probability of cost-effectiveness of Cerebrolysin as an add-on therapy for acute ischemic stroke, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 EUR in a 90-day timeframe after stroke. Further economic evaluations of Cerebrolysin are needed to strengthen these findings, covering a timeframe of at least 12 months after the acute incident, which would account for treatment effects spanning beyond the first 90 days after ischemic stroke. These should be conducted to determine its cost-effectiveness under various care settings and patient pathways. Most importantly, modelling techniques are needed to answer important questions such as the estimates of population gain in QALYs after acute administration of Cerebrolysin and the potential offsetting of direct medical costs as a result of administering the intervention.

Groin Hernia Repair during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Romanian Nationwide Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Groin hernia repair surgery (GHRS) is among the most common elective interventions. The aim of this three-year nationwide study on GHRS is to provide a thorough analysis of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the Romanian Health System in regard to elective procedures. Materials and Methods: 46,795 groin hernia cases obtained between 2019 and 2021 from the DRG database using ICD-10 diagnostic codes. The data were collected from all 261 GHRS performing hospitals nationwide, including 227 public hospitals (PbH) and 34 private hospitals (PvH). The 42 variables taken into account were processed using Microsoft Excel 2021, applying Chi square, F-Test Two-Sample for variances, and Two Sample t-Test. The significance threshold considered was p < 0.001. Results: Of the grand total of cases, 96.2% were inguinal hernias, 86.8% were performed on men, 15.2% were laparoscopic procedures, and 6.88% were in PvH. Overall, due to the pandemic, the total number of GHRS decreased with 44.45% in 2020 and with 29.72% in 2021 compared to pre-pandemic year 2019. April 2020 shows the steepest decrease in GHRS (91 procedures nationwide). In the private sector, there was an opposite trend with increases in the number of cases by 12.21% and a 70.22% in both pandemic years. The mean admission period (MAP) for all procedures was 5.5 days. There was a significant difference between PbH and PvH (5.75 vs. 2.8 days, p < 0.0001). During the pandemic, the MAP in PbH decreased (6.02 in 2019, 5.82 in 2020 and 5.3 in 2021), remaining stable for PvH (2.9 days in 2019, 2.85 days in 2020 and 2.74 days in 2021). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the overall number of GHRS performed in Romania in 2020 and 2021, compared to 2019. However, the private sector thrived with an actual increase in the number of cases. There was a significant lower MAP in the PvH compared to PbH throughout the three-year period.

Use of digital health tools in Europe: Before, during and after COVID-19

Digital health tools hold the potential to improve the efficiency, accessibility and quality of care. Before the pandemic, efforts had been made to support implementation across Europe over many years, but widespread adoption in practice had been difficult and slow. The greatest barriers to adoption of digital health tools were not primarily technical in nature, but instead lay in successfully facilitating the required individual, organizational and system changes. During the COVID-19 pandemic many digital health tools moved from being viewed as a potential opportunity to becoming an immediate necessity, and their use increased substantially. Digital health tools have been used during the pandemic to support four main areas: communication and information, including tackling misinformation;surveillance and monitoring;the continuing provision of health care such as through remote consultations;and the rollout and monitoring of vaccination programmes. Greater use of digital health tools during the pandemic has been facilitated by: policy changes to regulation and reimbursement;investment in technical infrastructure;and training for health professionals. As the pandemic comes under control, if health systems are to retain added value from greater use of digital health tools, active strategies are needed now to build on the current momentum around their use. Areas to consider while developing such strategies include: Ensuring clear system-level frameworks and reimbursement regimes for the use of digital health tools, while allowing scope for co-design of digital health solutions by patients and health professionals for specific uses. Combining local flexibility with monitoring and evaluation to learn lessons and ensure that digital health tools help to meet wider health system goals.

In-hospital admissions and deaths in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, in Romania.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic context led to a relevant burden on essential sectors of society; hospital sector capacity is tested in this period. Methods: A cross-sectional study of admissions in hospitals reporting DRG data for 2018-2020. Trend analysis of admissions and deaths in hospitals was carried out for identifying annual patterns and deviations from the 2010-2020 trend. Data aggregated by year, month, diagnosis, death in hospital. Graph analysis for time and diagnosis comparisons and correlation identifying associations. Results: There is an annual change in admission and death patterns recorded in Romanian hospitals. An important contraction in number of acute hospital admissions was recording during the COVID-19 pandemic; patients' hesitancy to seek healthcare and limited capacity to treat patients other than COVID-19 patients due to legal regulations limiting the admissions number could explain this pattern of admission only for serious condition or emergency surgery. In Romania excess deaths in second half 2020 was generally greater than COVID-19 deaths. Overall, excess mortality between March and December 2020 was more than double than reported COVID-19 deaths. The same mortality pattern persists, but with significant decreases for some diagnoses. Conclusions: The Romanian healthcare system has been challenged due to COVID-19 pandemic, leading to temporary reorganization of hospitals with consequences on all acute care diagnostics and therapeutic pathways. It is a challenge to identify causes of reduced inpatient treatment rates and to provide evidence on hospital activity for understanding future optimal management of patients with COVID-19, but also with other acute and chronic conditions.

A comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020.

This article compares the health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania from February 2020 until the end of 2020. It explores similarities and differences between the three countries, building primarily on the methodology and content compiled in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). We find that all three countries entered the COVID-19 crisis with common problems, including workforce shortages and underdeveloped and underutilized preventive and primary care. The countries reacted swiftly to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, declaring a state of emergency in March 2020 and setting up new governance mechanisms. The initial response benefited from a centralized approach and high levels of public trust but proved to be only a short-term solution. Over time, governance became dominated by political and economic considerations, communication to the public became contradictory, and levels of public trust declined dramatically. The three countries created additional bed capacity for the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the first wave, but a greater challenge was to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified health workers. New digital and remote tools for the provision of non-COVID-19 health services were introduced or used more widely, with an increase in telephone or online consultations and a simplification of administrative procedures. However, the provision and uptake of non-COVID-19 health services was still affected negatively by the pandemic. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing health system and governance challenges in the three countries, leading to a large number of preventable deaths.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries.

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: a comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems;(2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care;and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.