Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Taking Care of Business: Privileging Private Sector Hospitals During the COVID Crisis.

In the early days of the COVID crisis, many commentators argued that it presented opportunities for progressive change, notably toward redress of structural inequalities in health. As with the financial slump of 2008, however, such notions have proved almost ridiculously optimistic as it has been capital, through its near symbiosis with the state, that has been best able to respond, with the English government-the devolved nations adopted a markedly different approach-taking every opportunity to ensure the pandemic has proved a bonanza for private-sector healthcare interests. However, this has not just been about individual contracts in, for example, test and trace, vaccination, or personal protective equipment; the crisis has been used to both rescue the private acute market following 2 years of contracted revenues and to provide enormous stimulus for its future growth. This has required the support of several organizations acting in concert, including the NHS Confederation and the Royal Colleges. While the pandemic has served to illuminate such relationships, the author also argues that the oft-recurring governmental praise of the NHS needs to be matched by genuine investment in public hospitals.

For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response.

This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system.