Value of improving patient safety: health economic considerations for rapid response systems-a rapid review of the literature and expert round table.

OBJECTIVES: Failure to rescue deteriorating patients in hospital is a well-researched topic. We aimed to explore the impact of safer care on health economic considerations for clinicians, providers and policymakers. DESIGN: We undertook a rapid review of the available literature and convened a round table of international specialists in the field including experts on health economics and value-based healthcare to better understand health economics of clinical deterioration and impact of systems to reduce failure to rescue. RESULTS: Only a limited number of publications have examined the health economic impact of failure to rescue. Literature examining this topic lacked detail and we identified no publications on long-term cost outside the hospital following a deterioration event. The recent pandemic has added limited literature on prevention of deterioration in the patients' home.Cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency are dependent on broader system effects of adverse events. We suggest including the care needs beyond the hospital and loss of income of patients and/or their informal carers as well as sickness of healthcare staff exposed to serious adverse events in the analysis of adverse events. They are likely to have a larger health economic impact than the direct attributable cost of the hospital admission of the patient suffering the adverse event. Premorbid status of a patient is a major confounder for health economic considerations. CONCLUSION: In order to optimise health at the population level, we must limit long-term effects of adverse events through improvement of our ability to rapidly recognise and respond to acute illness and worsening chronic illness both in the home and the hospital.

Observational cross-sectional study of the association of poor broadband provision with demographic and health outcomes: the Wolverhampton Digital ENablement (WODEN) programme.

OBJECTIVES: The association between impaired digital provision, access and health outcomes has not been systematically studied. The Wolverhampton Digital ENablement programme (WODEN) is a multiagency collaborative approach to determine and address digital factors that may impact on health and social care in a single deprived multiethnic health economy. The objective of this study is to determine the association between measurable broadband provision and demographic and health outcomes in a defined population. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional whole local population-level study with cohorts defined according to broadband provision. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data for all residents of the City of Wolverhampton, totalling 269 785 residents. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Poor broadband provision is associated with variation in demographics and with increased comorbidity and urgent care needs. RESULTS: Broadband provision was measured using the Broadband Infrastructure Index (BII) in 158 City localities housing a total of 269 785 residents. Lower broadband provision as determined by BII was associated with younger age (p<0.001), white ethnic status (p<0.001), lesser deprivation as measured by Index of Multiple Deprivation (p<0.001), a higher number of health comorbidities (p<0.001) and more non-elective urgent events over 12 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Local municipal and health authorities are advised to consider the variations in broadband provision within their locality and determine equal distribution both on a geographical basis but also against demographic, health and social data to determine equitable distribution as a platform for equitable access to digital resources for their residents.

We know but we hope: A qualitative study of the opinions and experiences on the inclusion of management, health economics and research in the medical curriculum.

The achievement of global and national health goals requires a health workforce that is sufficient and trained. Despite considerable steps in medical education, the teaching of management, health economics and research skills for medical doctors are often neglected in medical curricula. This study explored the opinions and experiences of medical doctors and academic educationalists on the inclusion of management, health economics and research in the medical curriculum. A qualitative study was undertaken at four medical schools in Southern Africa (February to April 2021). The study population was medical doctors and academic educationalists. Semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled participants were conducted. All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Constructivist grounded theory guided the analysis with the use of ATLAS.ti version 9.1.7.0 software. In total, 21 academic educationalists and 28 medical doctors were interviewed. In the first theme We know, participants acknowledged the constraints of medical schools but were adamant that management needed to be taught intentionally and explicitly. The teaching and assessment of management and health economics was generally reported to be ad hoc and unstructured. There was a desire that graduates are able to use, but not necessarily do research. In comparison to management and research, support for the inclusion of health economics in the curriculum was insignificant. Under We hope, educationalists hoped that the formal clinical teaching will somehow instil values and best practices of management and that medical doctors would become health advocates. Most participants wished that research training could be optimised, especially in relation to the duration of allocated time; the timing in the curriculum and the learning outcomes. Despite acknowledgement that management and research are topics that need to be taught, educationalists appeared to rely on chance to teach and assess management in particular. These qualitative study findings will be used to develop a discrete choice experiment to inform optimal curricula design.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts.

BACKGROUND: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. METHODS: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. RESULTS: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). CONCLUSIONS: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view.

Availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines: A cross-sectional survey in Hanam province, Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: To measure medicines' prices, availability, and affordability in Hanam, Vietnam. METHODS: The standardized methodology developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Health Action International was used to survey 30 essential medicines (EMs) in 30 public health facilities and 35 private medicine outlets in 2020. The availability of medicine was computed as the percentage of health facilities in which this medicine was found on the data-collection day. International reference prices (IRPs) from Management Sciences for Health (2015) were used to compute Median Price Ratio (MPR). The affordability of treatments for common diseases was computed as the number of days' wages of the lowest-paid unskilled government worker needed to purchase medicines prescribed at a standard dose. Statistic analysis was done using R software version 4.1.1. RESULTS: The mean availability of originator brands (OBs) and lowest-priced generics (LPGs) was 0.7%, 63.2% in the public sector, and 13.7%, 47.9% in the private sector, respectively. In private medicine outlets, the mean availability of both OBs and LPGs in urban areas was significantly higher than that in rural areas (p = 0.0013 and 0.0306, respectively). In the public sector, LPGs' prices were nearly equal to their IRPs (median MPRs = 0.95). In the private medicine outlets, OBs were generally sold at 6.24 times their IRPs while this figure for LPGs was 1.65. The affordability of LPGs in both sectors was good for all conditions, with standard treatments costing a day's wage or less. CONCLUSION: In both sectors, generic medicines were the predominant product type available. The availability of EMs was fairly high but still lower than WHO's benchmark. A national-scale study should be conducted to provide a comprehensive picture of the availability, prices, and affordability of EMs, thereby helping the government to identify the urgent priorities and improving access to EMs in Vietnam.

A Health Economic Analysis for Oral Poliovirus Vaccine to Prevent COVID-19 in the United States.

COVID-19 led to a recent high-profile proposal to reintroduce oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in the United States (U.S.), initially in clinical trials, but potentially for widespread and repeated use. We explore logistical challenges related to U.S. OPV administration in 2020, review the literature related to nonspecific effects of OPV to induce innate immunity, and model the health and economic implications of the proposal. The costs of reintroducing a single OPV dose to 331 million Americans would exceed $4.4 billion. Giving a dose of bivalent OPV to the entire U.S. population would lead to an expected 40 identifiable cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio, with young Americans at the highest risk. Reintroducing any OPV use in the U.S. poses a risk of restarting transmission of OPV-related viruses and could lead to new infections in immunocompromised individuals with B-cell related primary immunodeficiencies that could lead to later cases of paralysis. Due to the lack of a currently licensed OPV in the U.S., the decision to administer OPV to Americans for nonspecific immunological effects would require purchasing limited global OPV supplies that could impact polio eradication efforts. Health economic modeling suggests no role for reintroducing OPV into the U.S. with respect to responding to COVID-19. Countries that currently use OPV experience fundamentally different risks, costs, and benefits than the U.S. Successful global polio eradication will depend on sufficient OPV supplies, achieving and maintaining high OPV coverage in OPV-using countries, and effective global OPV cessation and containment in all countries, including the U.S.

The broader societal impacts of COVID-19 and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses.

AbstractThe rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

An Updated Economic Analysis of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

Despite a strong global commitment, polio eradication efforts continue now more than 30 years after the 1988 World Health Assembly resolution that established the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), and 20 years after the original target of the year 2000. Prior health economic analyses estimated incremental net benefits of the GPEI of 40-50 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars (US$2008, equivalent to 48-59 billion US$2019), assuming the achievement of polio eradication by 2012. Given the delays in achieving polio eradication and increased costs, we performed an updated economic analysis of the GPEI using an updated integrated global model, and considering the GPEI trajectory as of the beginning of 2020. Applying similar methods and assuming eradication achievement in 2023, we estimate incremental net benefits of the GPEI of 28 billion US$2019, which falls below the prior estimate. Delays in achieving polio eradication combined with the widescale introduction of relatively expensive inactivated poliovirus vaccine significantly increased the costs of the GPEI and make it less cost-effective, although the GPEI continues to yield expected incremental net benefits at the global level when considered over the time horizon of 1988-2029. The overall health and financial benefits of the GPEI will depend on whether and when the GPEI can achieve its goals, when eradication occurs, the valuation method applied, and the path dependence of the actions taken. Reduced expected incremental net benefits of the GPEI and the substantial economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic pose large financial risks for the GPEI.

COVID-19 outbreak and its monetary implications for dental practices, hospitals and healthcare workers.

The novel COVID-19 came under limelight few months back (December 2019) and has recently been declared a pandemic by WHO. It has resulted in serious financial implications being faced by dental practices, hospitals and healthcare workers. Dental practice currently is restricted to provision of emergency dental care whereas, many hospitals have also cancelled elective procedures to save finances for COVID-19 treatment which is expensive and unpredictable. In addition, healthcare workers are also facing financial challenges in this difficult time. Competent authorities should step in to help dental practices, hospitals and healthcare workers in order to ensure the provision of all types of healthcare efficiently in these testing times and beyond.

How did "flatten the curve" become "flatten the economy?" A perspective from the United States of America.

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic offers many medical, economic, societal, and cultural challenges. The response by individual states in the United States of America varies, but with the common initial impetus for all being to "flatten the curve," which was intended to delay infections and spread the burden and impact on hospitals and medical systems. Starting with that intention, the responses by states has included many major steps not taken in prior pandemics. Those steps have significantly adversely affected hospitals rather than support them, and the overall impact has been to "flatten the economy" rather than just to "flatten the curve." Many state governors have stated that their decisions are "science-led" and "data driven" but the reality is that there is not relevant experimental data. The progression of decisions during the early pandemic decisions is traced, and the basis of decisions based in science or herd mentality is discussed. Experiences are not experiments, and experiences are not founded in the scientific process. Medical and government leaders must be vigilant to recognize the limitations of available data in responding to unique circumstances.