The relative incidence of COVID-19 in healthcare workers versus non-healthcare workers: evidence from a web-based survey of Facebook users in the United States.

Background: Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is essential to monitor the relative infection rate of this group, as compared to workers in other occupations. This study aimed to produce estimates of the relative incidence ratio between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Methods: Analysis of cross-sectional data from a daily, web-based survey of 1,788,795 Facebook users from September 6, 2020 to October 18, 2020. Participants were Facebook users in the United States aged 18 and above who were tested for COVID-19 because of an employer or school requirement in the past 14 days. The exposure variable was a self-reported history of working in healthcare in the past four weeks and the main outcome was a self-reported positive test for COVID-19. Results: On October 18, 2020, in the United States, there was a relative COVID-19 incidence ratio of 0.7 (95% UI 0.6 to 0.8) between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Conclusions: Currently in the United States, healthcare workers have a substantially and significantly lower COVID-19 incidence rate than workers in non-healthcare occupations.

Association Between Subnational Vaccine Coverage, Migration, and Incident Cases of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Iraq, 2001-2016.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines governorate-level disease incidence as well as the relationship between incidence and the number of persons of concern for three vaccine-preventable diseases-measles, mumps, and rubella-between 2001 and 2016. METHODS: Using Iraqi Ministry of Health and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) data, we performed descriptive analyses of disease incidence and conducted a pooled statistical analysis with a linear mixed effects regression model to examine the role of vaccine coverage and migration of persons of concern on subnational disease incidence. RESULTS: We found large variability in governorate-level incidence, particularly for measles (on the order of 100x). We identified decreases in incident measles cases per 100,000 persons for each additional percent vaccinated (0.82, 95% CI: [0.64, 1.00], p-value < 0.001) and for every additional 10,000 persons of concern when incorporating displacement into our model (0.26, 95% CI: [0.22, 0.30], p-value < 0.001). These relationships were insignificant for mumps and rubella. CONCLUSIONS: National level summary statistics do not adequately capture the high geospatial disparity in disease incidence between 2001 and 2016. This variability is complicated by MMR vaccine coverage and the migration of "persons of concern" (refugees) during conflict. We found that even when vaccine coverage was constant, measles incidence was higher in locations with more displaced persons, suggesting conflict fueled the epidemic in ways that vaccine coverage could not control.

Healthcare spending in U.S. emergency departments by health condition, 2006-2016.

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.

Western Washington State COVID-19 Experience: Keys to Flattening the Curve and Effective Health System Response.

BACKGROUND: Washington State experienced the first major outbreak of COVID-19 in the US and despite a significant number of cases, has seen a relatively low death rate per million population compared with other states with major outbreaks, and has seen a substantial decrease in the projections for healthcare use, that is, "flattening the curve." This consensus report seeks to identify the key factors contributing to the effective health system disaster response in western WA. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, expert panel including individuals and organizations who were integral to managing the public health and emergency healthcare system response were engaged in a consensus process to identify the key themes and lessons learned and develop recommendations for ongoing management of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified, including early communication and coordination among stakeholders; regional coordination of the healthcare system response; rapid development and access to viral testing; proactive management of long-term care and skilled nursing facilities; proactive management of vulnerable populations; and effective physical distancing in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the lessons learned in each of the areas identified by the panel, 11 recommendations are provided to support the healthcare system disaster response in managing future outbreaks.