Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 127
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 1365, 2021 Dec 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582068

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost of clinical management of COVID-19 infected patients based on their severity by exploring the resources used in health care provision in Myanmar. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cost analysis of COVID-19 patients was performed using the micro-costing approach from the perspective of the health system. It covered two cost components, namely direct and indirect cost of treating a patient. Input data and their quantities were obtained from COVID-19 Standard Treatment Guidelines of Ministry of Health and Sports, and administrative and financial records of resource utilization of three designated health facilities in Yangon Region. Valuation of these resources was based on the price list from the Procurement Section of the Ministry. RESULTS: This study estimated the unit cost of clinical management of COVID-19 infected patients with no symptom to be 953,552 MMK(717 USD), with mild-moderate symptoms to be 1,155,222 MMK(869 USD) and with severe-critically ill conditions to be 5,705,052 MMK(4290 USD). Average cost for a patient par day was 86,687 MMK(65 USD) for asymptomatic patients, 105,020 MMK(79 USD) for mild-moderate patients and 283,252 MMK(214 USD) for severe-critically ill patients. Since the first case detected till December 31, 2020, COVID-19 clinical management cost was accounted for 139 Billion MMK (104 Million USD) for total 124,630 confirmed cases. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic has caused health systems to incur the significant health care expenses. Timely implementation of the sustainable, affordable and efficient policy for COVID-19 responses is of utmost important for every nation especially in the face of a pandemic. This study provides the fundamental inputs for strategic planning, for future economic evaluations of different policy interventions, and policy recommendations for health systems to remain resilient during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Myanmar.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Health Care Costs , Humans , Myanmar/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 27(5): 492-500, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501235

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine levels of expenditure and needed investment in public health at the local level in the state of Ohio pre-COVID-19. DESIGN: Using detailed financial reporting from fiscal year (FY) 2018 from Ohio's local health departments (LHDs), we characterize spending by Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). We also constructed estimates of the gap in public health spending in the state using self-reported gaps in service provision and a microsimulation approach. Data were collected between January and June 2019 and analyzed between June and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four of the 113 LHDs in the state of Ohio covering a population of almost 9 million Ohioans. RESULTS: In FY2018, Ohio LHDs spent an average of $37 per capita on protecting and promoting the public's health. Approximately one-third of this investment supported the Foundational Areas (communicable disease control; chronic disease and injury prevention; environmental public health; maternal, child, and family health; and access to and linkages with health care). Another third supported the Foundational Capabilities, that is, the crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all LHD activities. The remaining third supported programs and activities that are responsive to local needs and vary from community to community. To fully meet identified LHD needs in the state pre-COVID-19, Ohio would require an additional annual investment of $20 per capita on top of the current $37 spent per capita, or approximately $240 million for the state. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the cost and value of public health services can educate policy makers so that they can make informed trade-offs when balancing health care, public health, and social services investments. The current environment of COVID-19 may dramatically increase need, making understanding and growing public health investment critical.


Subject(s)
Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Public Health Practice/economics , Public Health/economics , COVID-19/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Humans , Local Government , Ohio
4.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258182, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496505

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare spending in the emergency department (ED) setting has received intense focus from policymakers in the United States (U.S.). Relatively few studies have systematically evaluated ED spending over time or disaggregated ED spending by policy-relevant groups, including health condition, age, sex, and payer to inform these discussions. This study's objective is to estimate ED spending trends in the U.S. from 2006 to 2016, by age, sex, payer, and across 154 health conditions and assess ED spending per visit over time. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This observational study utilized the National Emergency Department Sample, a nationally representative sample of hospital-based ED visits in the U.S. to measure healthcare spending for ED care. All spending estimates were adjusted for inflation and presented in 2016 U.S. Dollars. Overall ED spending was $79.2 billion (CI, $79.2 billion-$79.2 billion) in 2006 and grew to $136.6 billion (CI, $136.6 billion-$136.6 billion) in 2016, representing a population-adjusted annualized rate of change of 4.4% (CI, 4.4%-4.5%) as compared to total healthcare spending (1.4% [CI, 1.4%-1.4%]) during that same ten-year period. The percentage of U.S. health spending attributable to the ED has increased from 3.9% (CI, 3.9%-3.9%) in 2006 to 5.0% (CI, 5.0%-5.0%) in 2016. Nearly equal parts of ED spending in 2016 was paid by private payers (49.3% [CI, 49.3%-49.3%]) and public payers (46.9% [CI, 46.9%-46.9%]), with the remainder attributable to out-of-pocket spending (3.9% [CI, 3.9%-3.9%]). In terms of key groups, the majority of ED spending was allocated among females (versus males) and treat-and-release patients (versus those hospitalized); those between age 20-44 accounted for a plurality of ED spending. Road injuries, falls, and urinary diseases witnessed the highest levels of ED spending, accounting for 14.1% (CI, 13.1%-15.1%) of total ED spending in 2016. ED spending per visit also increased over time from $660.0 (CI, $655.1-$665.2) in 2006 to $943.2 (CI, $934.3-$951.6) in 2016, or at an annualized rate of 3.4% (CI, 3.3%-3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Though ED spending accounts for a relatively small portion of total health system spending in the U.S., ED spending is sizable and growing. Understanding which diseases are driving this spending is helpful for informing value-based reforms that can impact overall health care costs.


Subject(s)
Disease/economics , Emergency Service, Hospital/economics , Health Care Costs , Health Care Costs/trends , Humans , Time Factors , United States
6.
Lancet Public Health ; 6(11): e848-e857, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488025

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with increased health risks across the life course. We aimed to estimate the annual health and financial burden of ACEs for 28 European countries. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Criminal Justice Databases, and Education Resources Information Center for quantitative studies (published Jan 1, 1990, to Sept 8, 2020) that reported prevalence of ACEs and risks of health outcomes associated with ACEs. Pooled relative risks were calculated for associations between ACEs and harmful alcohol use, smoking, illicit drug use, high body-mass index, depression, anxiety, interpersonal violence, cancer, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and respiratory disease. Country-level ACE prevalence was calculated using available data. Country-level population attributable fractions (PAFs) due to ACEs were generated and applied to 2019 estimates of disability-adjusted life-years. Financial costs (US$ in 2019) were estimated using an adapted human capital approach. FINDINGS: In most countries, interpersonal violence had the largest PAFs due to ACEs (range 14·7-53·5%), followed by harmful alcohol use (15·7-45·0%), illicit drug use (15·2-44·9%), and anxiety (13·9%-44·8%). Harmful alcohol use, smoking, and cancer had the highest ACE-attributable costs in many countries. Total ACE-attributable costs ranged from $0·1 billion (Montenegro) to $129·4 billion (Germany) and were equivalent to between 1·1% (Sweden and Turkey) and 6·0% (Ukraine) of nations' gross domestic products. INTERPRETATION: Availability of ACE data varies widely between countries and country-level estimates cannot be directly compared. However, findings suggest ACEs are associated with major health and financial costs across European countries. The cost of not investing to prevent ACEs must be recognised, particularly as countries look to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, which interrupted services and education, and potentially increased risk factors for ACEs. FUNDING: WHO Regional Office for Europe.


Subject(s)
Adverse Childhood Experiences/economics , Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Europe , Humans
7.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 1152, 2021 Oct 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484312

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To characterize health care use and costs among new Medicaid enrollees before and during the COVID pandemic. Results can help Medicaid non-expansion states understand health care use and costs of new enrollees in a period of enrollment growth. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North Carolina Medicaid claims data (January 1, 2018 - August 31, 2020). We used modified Poisson and ordinary least squares regression analysis to estimate health care use and costs as a function of personal characteristics and enrollment during COVID. Using data on existing enrollees before and during COVID, we projected the extent to which changes in outcomes among new enrollees during COVID were pandemic-related. SUBJECTS: 340,782 new enrollees pre-COVID (January 2018 - December 2019) and 56,428 new enrollees during COVID (March 2020 - June 2020). MEASURES: We observed new enrollees for 60-days after enrollment to identify emergency department (ED) visits, nonemergent ED visits, primary care visits, potentially-avoidable hospitalizations, dental visits, and health care costs. RESULTS: New Medicaid enrollees during COVID were less likely to have an ED visit (-46 % [95 % CI: -48 %, -43 %]), nonemergent ED visit (-52 % [95 % CI: -56 %, -48 %]), potentially-avoidable hospitalization (-52 % [95 % CI: -60 %, -43 %]), primary care visit (-34 % [95 % CI: -36 %, -33 %]), or dental visit (-36 % [95 % CI: -41 %, -30 %]). They were also less likely to incur any health care costs (-29 % [95 % CI: -30 %, -28 %]), and their total costs were 8 % lower [95 % CI: -12 %, -4 %]. Depending on the outcome, COVID explained between 34 % and 100 % of these reductions. CONCLUSIONS: New Medicaid enrollees during COVID used significantly less care than new enrollees pre-COVID. Most of the reduction stems from pandemic-related changes in supply and demand, but the profile of new enrollees before versus during COVID also differed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Care Costs , Humans , Medicaid , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
8.
Front Public Health ; 9: 653923, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463519

ABSTRACT

Over the last few decades, the perception of disease has changed significantly. In the concept of the sick person's role it should be the aim of every person to keep health at a good level for as long as possible. Several examples can be found where, however, a disease can be caused or worsened by a person. Examples include unhealthy diet, alcohol consumption leading to atherosclerosis and diabetes, or smoking, leading to lung cancer and COPD. There are also other appropriate examples where there is a potential for conflict between the autonomy of the individual and health. Improving public health should be the main objective of any health system. However, the more the impact is on personal freedom (and there is no extraneous danger), the more an attempt should be made to achieve this through the motivation of each individual to support the desire for a healthy lifestyle, rather than through legal prohibitions or penalties. The situation is even more complex in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this context too, personal freedom is restricted in many areas and some people feel, for example, that compulsory masks or the prohibition of large crowds are serious encroachment on their autonomy. However, even in this case, the risk of possible external threats from the spread of the virus outweighs the right to personal choice and freedom. To sum up, it is necessary to balance the two principles - autonomy and interference in them in the interests of public health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Health Care Costs , Health Facilities , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Trials ; 22(1): 39, 2021 Jan 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440947

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different "active" SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department's current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy's applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. TRIAL DESIGN: This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany's Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. MAIN OUTCOMES: The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. RANDOMISATION: Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. BLINDING (MASKING): The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. SAMPLE SIZES: Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants' perspective on testing processes and implementation. TRIAL STATUS: Final protocol version is "Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2" from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial . HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , Health Care Costs , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/economics , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/economics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Surveys and Questionnaires/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Population Surveillance , Predictive Value of Tests , Prevalence , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Reproducibility of Results , Single-Blind Method
11.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 17787, 2021 09 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397899

ABSTRACT

Despite COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Health Care Rationing/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/economics , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Computer Simulation , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dexamethasone/economics , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Humans , Intensive Care Units/economics , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/economics , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Respiration, Artificial/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
12.
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev ; 41(5): 308-314, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377990

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Provision of phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been directly impacted by coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Economic analyses to date have not identified the financial implications of pandemic-related changes to CR. The aim of this study was to compare the costs and reimbursements of CR between two periods: (1) pre-COVID-19 and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Health care costs of providing CR were calculated using a microcosting approach. Unit costs of CR were based on staff time, consumables, and overhead costs. Reimbursement rates were derived from commercial and public health insurance. The mean cost and reimbursement/participant were calculated. Staff and participant COVID-19 infections were also examined. RESULTS: The mean number of CR participants enrolled/mo declined during the pandemic (-10%; 33.8 ± 2.0 vs 30.5 ± 3.2, P = .39), the mean cost/participant increased marginally (+13%; $2897 ± $131 vs $3265 ± $149, P = .09), and the mean reimbursement/participant decreased slightly (-4%; $2959 ± $224 vs $2844 ± $181, P = .70). However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The pre-COVID mean operating surplus/participant ($62 ± $140) eroded into a deficit of -$421 ± $170/participant during the pandemic. No known COVID-19 infections occurred among the 183 participants and 14 on-site staff members during the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related safety protocols required CR programs to modify service delivery. Results demonstrate that it was possible to safely maintain this critically important service; however, CR program costs exceeded revenues. The challenge going forward is to optimize CR service delivery to increase participation and achieve financial solvency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiac Rehabilitation , Health Care Costs , Aged , Cardiac Rehabilitation/economics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Surg Obes Relat Dis ; 17(12): 2091-2096, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1366681

ABSTRACT

Obesity has rapidly become a significant public health issue. As the prevalence of obesity continues to rise, so does its economic burden as a result of both direct and indirect costs. Likewise, since 2019, the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic with rising infection rates carrying significant economic costs associated with treatment of the disease and the reduction in economic activity due to government regulations. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact on obesity, not only creating an increasingly obesogenic environment but also reducing access to bariatric care and treatment of obesity-related diseases. In this article, we form a compelling argument for the resumption of bariatric services as soon as it is safe to do so because bariatric surgery brings significant additional medical and economic benefits. Medically, obesity is a risk factor for increased severity of COVID-19 infections, and therefore, treatment of obesity should be a priority in the current pandemic. Additionally, bariatric surgery has been shown to be a cost-saving procedure in the long term and thus has significant economic benefit in reducing the costs of obesity in the future as we recover from the economic collapse following the global pandemic.


Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , COVID-19 , Obesity, Morbid , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Health Care Costs , Humans , Obesity, Morbid/epidemiology , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Arch Argent Pediatr ; 119(4): 270-272, 2021 08.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1325945

ABSTRACT

In patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, endotracheal intubation is a procedure with a high risk for transmission. A videolaryngoscopy is a supplementary level of health care provider protection, but commercial videolaryngoscopes are expensive and not always available in pediatric intensive care units in Argentina. Our objective was to describe intubation practice using an infant head mannequin with a low-cost, handcrafted videolaryngoscope. Fifteen pediatricians with no prior experience using the device participated in an intubation practice in a head mannequin with a handcrafted videolaryngoscope. The average time for the first attempt was 116.4 seconds (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 84.8- 148.0) and, for the second one, 44.2 seconds (95 % CI: 27.7-60.6). Time decreased significantly for the second attempt (p: 0.0001). A successful intubation was achieved with the device in all attempts, and the procedure duration decreased with the second practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Laryngoscopes/economics , Laryngoscopy/education , Pediatrics/education , Simulation Training/methods , Argentina , COVID-19/transmission , Clinical Competence/statistics & numerical data , Education, Medical, Continuing/methods , Health Care Costs , Humans , Infant , Internship and Residency/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/economics , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Laryngoscopy/economics , Laryngoscopy/instrumentation , Laryngoscopy/methods , Learning Curve , Manikins , Pediatrics/economics , Time Factors , Video Recording
16.
J Ambul Care Manage ; 43(4): 278-285, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319200

ABSTRACT

Patient-reported health confidence is a valuable indicator of effective patient-clinician communication, which improves outcomes and reduces costly care use. This national survey examines health confidence attainment in the United States before the COVID pandemic strained health care resources. Health confidence was low for both the percentage of respondents who were financially secure (36%) and financially insecure (18%). Persons enrolled in employer- and union-sponsored plans, who had the highest household income, did not report higher levels of health confidence. Health policy should support the measurement and monitoring of health confidence in clinical practice to improve population health and maximize resource efficiency.


Subject(s)
Pandemics , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Female , Health Care Costs , Health Policy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Young Adult
19.
Epilepsy Res ; 176: 106689, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1303518

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the role of prior experience with virtual care (through e-visits) in maintaining continuity in ambulatory epilepsy care during an unprecedented pandemic situation, comparing in person versus e-visit clinic uptake. METHODS: This is an observational study on virtual epilepsy care (through e-visits) over two years, during a pre-COVID period (14 months) continuing into the COVID-19 pandemic period (10 months). For a small initial section of patients seen during the study period a physician survey and a patient satisfaction survey were completed (n = 53). Outcomes of eVisits were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Median numbers of epilepsy clinic visits conducted during the COVID-19 period (27.5 new and 113 follow up) remained similar to the median uptake during the pre-COVID period (28 new and 116 follow up). Prior experience with e-visits for epilepsy yielded smooth transition into the pandemic period, with several other advantages. The majority of eVisits were successful despite technical difficulties and major components of history and management were still easily implemented. Results from patient surveys supported that a significant amount of time and money were saved, which was in keeping with our health-economic analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study is one of the first few reports of fully integrated virtual care in a comprehensive epilepsy clinic starting much before start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of our study support the feasibility of using virtual care to deliver specialized outpatient care in a comprehensive epilepsy center.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Epilepsy/therapy , Telemedicine/methods , User-Computer Interface , Adult , Aged , Efficiency, Organizational , Epilepsy/diagnosis , Epilepsy/economics , Female , Health Care Costs , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Medical History Taking/methods , Middle Aged , Ontario , Patient Satisfaction , Patient-Centered Care , Telemedicine/economics , Young Adult
20.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(13)2021 Jul 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295841

ABSTRACT

Background: The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has cast into sharp relief the delicate balance between public health priorities and the economy, with businesses obliged to toe the line between employee health and continued production. In an effort to detect as many cases as possible, isolate contacts, cut transmission chains, and limit the spread of the virus in the workplace, mass testing strategies have been implemented in both public health and industrial contexts to minimize the risk of disruption in activity. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of the mass workplace testing strategy as carried out by a large automotive company in Catalonia in terms of health and healthcare resource savings. Methodology: Analysis of health costs and impacts based on the estimation of the mortality and morbidity avoided because of screening, and the resulting savings in healthcare costs. Results: The economic impact of the mass workplace testing strategies (using both PCR and RAT tests) was approximately €10.44 per test performed or €5575.49 per positive detected; 38% of this figure corresponds to savings derived from better use of health resources (hospital beds, ICU beds, and follow-up of infected cases), while the remaining 62% corresponds to improved health rates due to the avoided morbidity and mortality. In scenarios with higher positivity rates and a greater impact of the infection on health and the use of health resources, these results could be up to ten times higher (€130.24 per test performed or €69,565.59 per positive detected). Conclusion: In the context of COVID-19, preventive actions carried out by the private sector to safeguard industrial production also have concomitant public benefits in the form of savings in healthcare costs. Thus, governmental bodies need to recognize the value of implementing such strategies in private settings and facilitate them through, for example, subsidies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Care Costs , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Workplace
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...