Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
2.
J Neurosurg ; 136(1): 40-44, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304576

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgical cases generally have lower costs, higher profit margins, and better outcomes than nonelective cases. Investigating the differences in cost and profit between elective and nonelective cases would help hospitals in planning strategies to withstand financial losses due to potential pandemics. The authors sought to evaluate the exact cost and profit margin differences between elective and nonelective supratentorial tumor resections at a single institution. METHODS: The authors collected economic analysis data in all patients who underwent supratentorial tumor resection at their institution between January 2014 and December 2018. The patients were grouped into elective and nonelective cases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 143 elective cases and 232 nonelective cases over the 5 years. Patients in the majority of elective cases had private insurance and in the majority of nonelective cases the patients had Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.01). The total charges were significantly lower for elective cases ($168,800.12) compared to nonelective cases ($254,839.30, p < 0.01). The profit margins were almost 6 times higher for elective than for nonelective cases ($13,025.28 vs $2,128.01, p = 0.04). After propensity score matching, there was still a significant difference between total charges and total cost. CONCLUSIONS: Elective supratentorial tumor resections were associated with significantly lower costs with shorter lengths of stay while also being roughly 6 times more profitable than nonelective cases. These findings may help future planning for hospital strategies to survive financial losses during future pandemics that require widespread cancellation of elective cases.


Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms/economics , Brain Neoplasms/surgery , Costs and Cost Analysis/trends , Elective Surgical Procedures/economics , Elective Surgical Procedures/trends , Propensity Score , Female , Humans , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/trends , Length of Stay/economics , Length of Stay/trends , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/economics , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
5.
J Med Econ ; 24(1): 308-317, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069172

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate health outcomes and the economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis code for COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) from 1 April to 31 October 2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare COVID-19 Database. Patient demographics, hospitalization characteristics, and concomitant medical conditions were assessed. Hospital length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, hospital charges, and hospital costs were evaluated overall and stratified by age groups, insurance types, and 4 COVID-19 disease progression states based on intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) usage. RESULTS: Of the 173,942 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the median age was 63 years, 51.0% were male, and 48.5% were covered by Medicare. The most prevalent concomitant medical conditions were cardiovascular disease (73.5%), hypertension (64.8%), diabetes (40.7%), obesity (27.0%), and chronic kidney disease (24.2%). Approximately one-fifth (21.9%) of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU and 16.9% received IMV; most patients (73.6%) did not require ICU admission or IMV, and 12.4% required both. The median hospital LOS was 5 days, in-hospital mortality was 13.6%, median hospital charges were $43,986, and median hospital costs were $12,046. Hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality increased with ICU and/or IMV usage and age; hospital charges and costs increased with ICU and/or IMV usage. Patients with both ICU and IMV usage had the longest median hospital LOS (15 days), highest in-hospital mortality (53.8%), and highest hospital charges ($198,394) and hospital costs ($54,402). LIMITATIONS: This retrospective administrative database analysis relied on coding accuracy and a subset of admissions with validated/reconciled hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study summarizes the severe health outcomes and substantial hospital costs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. The findings support the urgent need for rapid implementation of effective interventions, including safe and efficacious vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Hospital Charges/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/economics , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Cost of Illness , Disease Progression , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Insurance Coverage/economics , Intensive Care Units/economics , Length of Stay/economics , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/economics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
6.
J Health Polit Policy Law ; 46(4): 599-609, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1050485

ABSTRACT

In January 2021, the incoming Biden administration inherited urgent priorities for curbing health care spending and expanding health care coverage to millions of Americans while also addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic downturn. Among these competing priorities is the issue of access to and affordability of prescription drugs. Here, the authors outline Biden's plan for directly lowering prescription drug spending for payers and patients and for expanding access to prescription medications through improved health insurance coverage. These policies could provide important financial protections for Americans against high prescription drug prices. Despite widespread public support for addressing prescription drug prices, many of Biden's plans rely on congressional action, which will be complicated by the narrow majority held by Democrats in the House and an evenly divided Senate. However, there may be other opportunities for reducing prescription drug spending and improving health insurance enrollment among the uninsured. While directly lowering drug prices would provide the most widespread savings for payers and patients alike, any successful effort for increasing the number of Americans enrolled in health insurance or rendering it more affordable will still likely effectively lower patients' out-of-pocket costs and improve access to prescription drugs.


Subject(s)
Health Expenditures , Health Services Accessibility , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance, Health/economics , Prescription Drugs/economics , Humans , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Politics , United States
7.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 40(1): 105-112, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1007103

ABSTRACT

The return of a Democratic administration to the White House, coupled with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-induced contractions of job-based insurance, may reignite debate over public coverage expansion and its costs. Decades of research demonstrate that uninsured people and people with copays and deductibles use less care than people with first-dollar coverage. Hence, most economic analyses of Medicare for All proposals and other coverage expansions project increased utilization and associated costs. We review the utilization surges that such analyses have predicted and contrast them with the more modest utilization increments observed after past coverage expansions in the US and other affluent nations. The discrepancy between predicted and observed utilization changes suggests that analysts underestimate the role of supply-side constraints-for example, the finite number of physicians and hospital beds. Our review of the utilization effects of past coverage expansions suggests that a first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10 percent and hospital use by 0-3 percent. Modest administrative savings could offset the costs of such increases.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Costs and Cost Analysis/economics , Insurance Coverage/economics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Universal Health Care , COVID-19 , Humans , Medicaid/economics , Medically Uninsured , Medicare/economics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/economics , United States
8.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr ; 146(3): 198-204, 2021 Feb.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1006397

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 illness can occur as an occupational disease or work-related accident. According to the German list of occupational diseases, recognition as an occupational disease 3101 requires occupational exposure of an insured person who has been exposed to an increased risk of infection compared to the general population as a result of their occupational activity in one of the four areas: (1) health service or (2) social welfare sector, (3) laboratory or (4) during activities with increased risk of infection comparable to (1) to (3). The insurance cover covers employees, self-employed people - if not exempted from insurance cover - and honorary workers. The COVID-19 disease is subject to legal notification, mostly in conjunction with a contemporary SARS-CoV-2 virus detection. Regarding insured people who are not included within the aforementioned areas (1) to (4), the COVID-19 illness can be acknowledged as an occupational accident if the intense and direct contact with infected people - not intended as in the case of occupational disease 3101 - but otherwise situationally results from the insured activity itself.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/etiology , Insurance Coverage , Occupational Diseases/economics , Occupational Diseases/etiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Disease Notification/legislation & jurisprudence , Disease Notification/standards , Germany , Health Occupations , Humans , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/standards , Laboratories , Occupational Exposure , Risk Factors , Social Welfare , Volunteers
11.
J Mol Diagn ; 22(8): 967, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-701298

ABSTRACT

This editorial highlights the article from the Association for Molecular Pathology's Economic Affairs Committee that appears in this issue.


Subject(s)
Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Laboratories, Hospital/economics , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/economics , Humans , Patient Care/economics , Remuneration
13.
14.
Int J Health Serv ; 50(4): 408-414, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-628695

ABSTRACT

Four decades of neoliberal health policies have left the United States with a health care system that prioritizes the profits of large corporate actors, denies needed care to tens of millions, is extraordinarily fragmented and inefficient, and was ill prepared to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The payment system has long rewarded hospitals for providing elective surgical procedures to well-insured patients while penalizing those providing the most essential and urgent services, causing hospital revenues to plummet as elective procedures were cancelled during the pandemic. Before the recession caused by the pandemic, tens of millions of Americans were unable to afford care, compromising their physical and financial health; deep-pocketed corporate interests were increasingly dominating the hospital industry and taking over physicians' practices; and insurers' profits hit record levels. Meanwhile, yawning class-based and racial inequities in care and health outcomes remain and have even widened. Recent data highlight the failure of policy strategies based on market models and the need to shift to a nonprofit social insurance model.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Costs and Cost Analysis , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/economics , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Medicare/economics , Pandemics , Politics , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
15.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 39(9): 1605-1614, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-615681

ABSTRACT

As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, virtually all in-person outpatient visits were canceled in many parts of the country between March and May 2020. We sought to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 on the operating expenses and revenues of primary care practices. Using a microsimulation model incorporating national data on primary care use, staffing, expenditures, and reimbursements, including telemedicine visits, we estimated that over the course of calendar year 2020, primary care practices would be expected to lose 67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician (the difference between 2020 gross revenue with COVID-19 and the anticipated gross revenue if COVID-19 had not occurred). We further estimated that the cost at a national level to neutralize the revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices would be $15.1 billion. This could more than double if COVID-19 telemedicine payment policies are not sustained.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Expenditures , Insurance Coverage/economics , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Primary Health Care/economics , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Male , Models, Economic , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL