The economic impact of a COVID-19 illness from the perspective of families seeking care in a private hospital in India.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact that caused significant morbidity, mortality, and financial stress for families. Our study aimed to determine the Out-of-pocket expenses and economic impact of a Covid-19 illness for households where patients were admitted to a private hospital in India. Methodology: This was a cost-of-illness study from a tertiary care academic institute where adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from May 2020 to June 2021 were included. Patients with an admission of less than one day or who had any form of insurance were excluded. The clinical and financial details were obtained from the hospital information system and a cross-sectional survey. This was stratified across three clinical severity levels and two epidemiological waves. Results: The final analysis included 4445 patients, with 73 % admitted in Wave 1 and 99 patients interviewed. For patients with severity levels 1, 2 and 3, the median admission days were 7, 8 and 13 days respectively. The total cost of illness (general category) was $934 (₹69,010), $1507 (₹111,403) and $3611 (₹266,930) and the direct medical cost constituted 66%, 77% and 91% of the total cost for each level respectively. Factors associated with higher admission costs were higher age groups, male gender, oxygen use, ICU care, private admission, increased duration of hospital stay and Wave 2. The median annual household income was $3247 (₹240,000) and 36% of families had to rely on more than one financial coping strategies, loans with interest being the commonest one. The lockdown period affected employment and reduced income for a considerable proportion of households. Conclusion: A Covid admission of higher severity was a significant financial burden on families. The study reaffirms the need for collaborative and sustainable health financing systems to protect populations from hardships.$-US Dollar; ₹- Indian Rupees.

Development of a Choice-framework for Covid vaccines in India using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context. METHODS: We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list. RESULTS: The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.