Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 41
Filter
3.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260782, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581772

ABSTRACT

There has been resistance to COVID-19 public health restrictions partly due to changes and reductions in work, resulting in financial stress. Psychological reactance theory posits that such restrictions to personal freedoms result in anger, defiance, and motivation to restore freedom. In an online study (N = 301), we manipulated the target of COVID-19 restrictions as impacting self or community. We hypothesized that (a) greater pandemic-related financial stress would predict greater reactance, (b) the self-focused restriction condition would elicit greater reactance than the community-focused restriction condition, (c) reactance would be greatest for financially-stressed individuals in the self-focused condition, and (d) greater reactance would predict lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. Independent of political orientation and sense of community, greater financial stress predicted greater reactance only in the self-focused condition; the community-focused condition attenuated this association. Additionally, greater reactance was associated with lower social distancing behavior. These findings suggest that economic hardship exacerbates negative responses to continued personal freedom loss. Community-focused COVID-19 health messaging may be better received during continued pandemic conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/psychology , Public Health/trends , Adult , Aged , Anger , Female , Financial Stress/economics , Freedom , Health Policy/economics , Humans , Intention , Male , Middle Aged , Motivation , Pandemics/economics , Physical Distancing , Psychological Theory , Public Health/methods , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Value Health ; 24(11): 1551-1569, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557697

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies' content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: The quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Health Policy/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis/trends , Health Policy/trends , Humans
8.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 19(4): 463-472, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300549

ABSTRACT

With vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being introduced in countries across the world, policy makers are facing many practical considerations about how best to implement a vaccination programme. The supply of vaccines is insufficient for the global population, so decisions must be made as to which groups are prioritised for any vaccination and when. Furthermore, the aims of vaccination programmes will differ between countries, with some prioritising economic benefits that could stem from the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and others seeking simply to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. This paper aims to share the experiences and lessons learned from conducting economic evaluations in Singapore and Thailand on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines to provide a basis for other countries to develop their own contextualised economic evaluations, with particular focus on the key uncertainties, technical challenges, and characteristics that modellers should consider in partnership with key stakeholders. Which vaccines, vaccination strategies, and policy responses are most economically beneficial remains uncertain. It is therefore important for all governments to conduct their own analyses to inform local policy responses to COVID-19, including the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in both the short and the long run. It is essential that such studies are designed, and ideally conducted, before vaccines are introduced so that policy decisions and implementation procedures are not delayed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Policy/economics , Immunization Programs/economics , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Thailand
10.
Viruses ; 13(5)2021 05 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1234828

ABSTRACT

The global COVID-19 spread has forced countries to implement non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) (i.e., mobility restrictions and testing campaigns) to preserve health systems. Spain is one of the most severely impacted countries, both clinically and economically. In an effort to support policy decision-making, we aimed to assess the impacts of different NPI on COVID-19 epidemiology, healthcare costs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A modified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed epidemiological model was created to simulate the pandemic evolution. Its output was used to populate an economic model to quantify healthcare costs and GDP variation through a regression model which correlates NPI and GDP change from 42 countries. Thirteen scenarios combining different NPI were consecutively simulated in the epidemiological and economic models. Both increased testing and stringency could reduce cases, hospitalizations and deaths. While policies based on increased testing rates lead to higher healthcare costs, increased stringency is correlated with greater GDP declines, with differences of up to 4.4% points. Increased test sensitivity may lead to a reduction of cases, hospitalizations and deaths and to the implementation of pooling techniques that can increase throughput testing capacity. Alternative strategies to control COVID-19 spread entail differing economic outcomes. Decision-makers may utilize this tool to identify the most suitable strategy considering epidemiological and economic outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Health Policy/economics , Pandemics/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Government , Gross Domestic Product , Health Care Costs , Humans , Mass Screening , Models, Economic , Models, Theoretical , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
11.
Lancet ; 397(10288): 2012-2022, 2021 05 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219074

ABSTRACT

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Policy/economics , State Medicine/economics , Financing, Government , Humans , Social Support , United Kingdom
12.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 78(14): 1294-1308, 2021 07 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195708

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2021 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2021 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2021 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2020, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States grew 4.9% compared to 2019, for a total of $535.3 billion. Utilization (a 2.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase, with price changes having minimal influence (a 0.3% increase). Adalimumab was the top drug in 2020, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $35.3 billion (a 4.6% decrease) and $98.4 billion (an 8.1% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals the decrease in expenditures was driven by reduced utilization. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2021. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2021, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4% to 6%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7% to 9% and 3% to 5%, respectively, compared to 2020. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Drug Costs/trends , Economics, Pharmaceutical/trends , Health Expenditures/trends , Prescription Drugs/economics , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/economics , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/trends , Drugs, Generic/economics , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Health Policy/economics , Health Policy/trends , Humans , Pharmacy/trends , Prescription Drugs/therapeutic use , United States/epidemiology
13.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0248703, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1167094

ABSTRACT

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Vietnamese government has actively implemented various policies to achieve dual objectives: (i) to minimize the loss of life due to the infection; and (ii) to support economic growth. This paper is conducted to examine the effect of the government's containment and closure policy on the stock market quality in Vietnam. Unlike other papers, we focus exclusively on market quality during the pandemic. We find that the policies appear to positively affect the market quality, except for closing-school policy (negative effect) and international travel (no effect). We argue that the government should sustain the policies until the wide availability of the vaccine to support the stock market quality in the near future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Policy/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Economic Development , Government , Humans , Quarantine , Vietnam
16.
Lancet ; 397(10282): 1400-1418, 2021 04 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118736

ABSTRACT

As the world counts down to the 2025 World Health Assembly nutrition targets and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, millions of women, children, and adolescents worldwide remain undernourished (underweight, stunted, and deficient in micronutrients), despite evidence on effective interventions and increasing political commitment to, and financial investment in, nutrition. The COVID-19 pandemic has crippled health systems, exacerbated household food insecurity, and reversed economic growth, which together could set back improvements in undernutrition across low-income and middle-income countries. This paper highlights how the evidence base for nutrition, health, food systems, social protection, and water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions has evolved since the 2013 Lancet Series on maternal and child nutrition and identifies the priority actions needed to regain and accelerate progress within the next decade. Policies and interventions targeting the first 1000 days of life, including some newly identified since 2013, require renewed commitment, implementation research, and increased funding from both domestic and global actors. A new body of evidence from national and state-level success stories in stunting reduction reinforces the crucial importance of multisectoral actions to address the underlying determinants of undernutrition and identifies key features of enabling political environments. To support these actions, well-resourced nutrition data and information systems are essential. The paper concludes with a call to action for the 2021 Nutrition for Growth Summit to unite global and national nutrition stakeholders around common priorities to tackle a large, unfinished undernutrition agenda-now amplified by the COVID-19 crisis.


Subject(s)
Child Nutrition Disorders/prevention & control , Health Policy , Malnutrition/prevention & control , Sustainable Development , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child Nutrition Disorders/epidemiology , Developing Countries/economics , Female , Food Insecurity , Health Policy/economics , Humans , Malnutrition/epidemiology , Pandemics , Social Determinants of Health , Sustainable Development/economics
17.
J Am Board Fam Med ; 34(Suppl): S225-S228, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1099991

ABSTRACT

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many physicians and health care systems have shifted to providing care via telehealth as much as possible. Although necessary to control spread of the virus and preserve personal protective equipment, this shift highlights existing disparities in access and care. Patients without the skills and tools to access telehealth services may increase their risk of exposure by seeking care in person or may delay care entirely. We know that patients need internet access, devices capable of visual communication, and the skills to use these devices to experience the full benefits of telehealth, yet we also know that disparities are present in each of these areas. Currently, federal programs have given physicians greater flexibility in providing care remotely and have expanded internet access for vulnerable patients to promote telehealth services. However, these changes are temporary and it is uncertain which will remain when the pandemic is over. Family medicine physicians have an important role to play in identifying and addressing these disparities and facilitating more equitable care moving forward.


Subject(s)
Family Practice/organization & administration , Health Equity/economics , Telemedicine/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Equity/trends , Health Policy/economics , Health Policy/trends , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Internet/economics , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/economics , United States/epidemiology
18.
Am J Prev Med ; 60(4): 537-541, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1086740

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Although many Medicare Advantage plans have waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations, these waivers are voluntary and may be temporary. To estimate the magnitude of potential patient cost sharing if waivers are not implemented or are allowed to expire, this study assesses the level and predictors of out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations in 2018 among elderly Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: Using the Optum De-Identified Clinformatics DataMart, investigators identified Medicare Advantage patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for influenza in 2018. For each hospitalization, out-of-pocket spending was calculated by summing deductibles, coinsurance, and copays. The mean out-of-pocket spending and the proportion of hospitalizations with out-of-pocket spending exceeding $2,500 were calculated. A 1-part generalized linear model with a log link and Poisson variance function was fitted to model out-of-pocket spending as a function of patient demographic characteristics, plan type, and hospitalization characteristics. Coefficients were converted to absolute changes in out-of-pocket spending by calculating average marginal effects. RESULTS: Among 14,278 influenza hospitalizations, the mean out-of-pocket spending was $987 (SD=$799). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2,500 for 3.0% of hospitalizations. The factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included intensive care use, greater length of stay, and enrollment in a preferred provider organization plan (average marginal effect=$634, 95% CI=$631, $636) compared with enrollment in an HMO plan. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of elderly Medicare Advantage patients, the mean out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations was almost $1,000. Federal policymakers should consider passing legislation mandating insurers to eliminate cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations. Insurers with existing cost-sharing waivers should consider extending them indefinitely, and those without such waivers should consider implementing them immediately.


Subject(s)
Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Hospitalization/economics , Influenza, Human/economics , Medicare Part C/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/therapy , Cost Sharing/economics , Cost Sharing/legislation & jurisprudence , Cost Sharing/statistics & numerical data , Cost of Illness , Female , Health Policy/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Influenza, Human/therapy , Male , Medicare Part C/economics , Medicare Part C/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
19.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 9(11): 466-468, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1068321

ABSTRACT

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to unfold there is an untold number of trade-offs being made in every country around the globe. The experience in the United Kingdom and Canada to date has not seen much uptake of health economics methods. We provide some thoughts on how this could take place, specifically in three areas. Firstly, this can involve understanding the impact of lockdown policies on national productivity. Secondly, there is great importance in studying trade-offs with respect to enhancing health system capacity and the impact of the mix of private-public financing. Finally, there are key trade-offs that will continue to be made both in terms of access to testing and ventilators which would benefit greatly from economic appraisal. In short, health economics could - and we would argue most certainly should - play a much more prominent role in policy-making as it relates to the current as well as future pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Health Planning/economics , Health Policy/economics , Canada , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL