Socioeconomic disparities in healthcare utilization under universal health coverage: evidence from Dubai household health survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, Dubai implemented the Insurance System of Advancing Health in Dubai (ISAHD) law which required mandatory health insurance for all residents of Dubai effective in 2016. This study compares the effect of the ISAHD on the utilization and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for low and high socio-economic status sub-groups. METHODS: The study used the 2014 and 2018 Dubai Household Health Survey (DHHS) a representative survey of Dubai stratified as: 1) Nationals; 2) Non-nationals in households; 3) Non-nationals in collective housing; and 4) Non-nationals in labor camps. The probability that each household would have expenditures was calculated, then multiplied by a weighted estimate of the average total OOP expenditure. RESULTS: Overall Dubai's health spending rose from 12.8 billion AED (3.4 billion US $) in 2014 to 16.8 billion AED (4.6 billion US $) in 2017. Concurrently, the OOP share in total health spending in Dubai fell from 25% in 2014 to 13% in 2017. From 2014 to 2018, there were increases in the utilization of inpatient, outpatient and discretionary services for all groups except non-nationals living in camps. In 2018, nationals spent a total of 1064.65 AED, non-nationals in households spent 675.01 AED, collective households spent 82.35 AED, and labor camps spent 100.32 AED out-of-pocket per capita for healthcare expenditures. During and after the implementation of ISAHD, there was a substantial growth in the OOP expenditure per capita for nationals and non-nationals in households due to increased utilization. OOP spending did not rise for the lower-income non-National households. CONCLUSION: Dubai has been successful in reducing the household share of OOP expenditures by shifting the financial burden to government and employers. Emiratis and expatriate households increased their health service utilization after ISAHD but blue-collar workers did not. Remaining non-financial barriers to care for Dubai's blue-collar workers must be identified and addressed.

Humanistic and Economic Burden of Conversion Therapy Among LGBTQ Youths in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE), also called conversion therapy, is a discredited practice attempting to convert lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ) individuals to be heterosexual and/or cisgender. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize evidence on the humanistic and economic consequences of SOGICE among LGBTQ youths in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study, conducted from December 1, 2020, to February 15, 2021, included a systematic literature review and economic evaluation. The literature review analyzed published evidence on SOGICE among LGBTQ individuals of any age. The economic model evaluated the use of SOGICE vs no intervention, affirmative therapy vs no intervention, and affirmative therapy vs SOGICE to estimate the costs and adverse outcomes for each scenario and to assess the overall US economic burden of SOGICE. Published literature and public sources were used to estimate the number of LGBTQ youths exposed to SOGICE, the types of therapy received, and the associated adverse events (anxiety, severe psychological distress, depression, alcohol or substance abuse, suicide attempts, and fatalities). EXPOSURES: SOGICE (licensed or religion-based practitioners) or affirmative therapy (licensed practitioners). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) vs no intervention and total economic burden of SOGICE. RESULTS: Among 28 published studies, which included 190 695 LGBTQ individuals, 12% (range, 7%-23%) of youths experienced SOGICE, initiated at a mean age of 25 years (range, 5-58 years), with a mean (SD) duration of 26 (29) months. At least 2 types of SOGICE were administered to 43% of recipients. Relative to LGBTQ individuals who did not undergo SOGICE, recipients experienced serious psychological distress (47% vs 34%), depression (65% vs 27%), substance abuse (67% vs 50%), and attempted suicide (58% vs 39%). In the economic analysis, over a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated additional $97 985 lifetime costs per individual, with SOGICE associated with 1.61 QALYs lost vs no intervention; affirmative therapy yielded cost savings of $40 329 with 0.93 QALYs gained vs no intervention. With an estimated 508 892 youths at risk for SOGICE in 2021, the total annual cost of SOGICE is estimated at $650.16 million (2021 US dollars), with associated harms totaling an economic burden of $9.23 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation study suggests that there is a high economic burden and high societal costs associated with SOGICE and identifies additional research questions regarding the roles of private and public funding in supporting this harmful practice.

Economic value of vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic: a U.S. cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.

AIMS: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has infected over two hundred million worldwide and caused 4.4 million of deaths as of August 2021. Vaccines were quickly developed to address the pandemic. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a non-specified vaccine for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a U.S. healthcare sector perspective. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and COVID-19 vaccine. Hospitalization and mortality rates were calibrated to U.S. COVID-19 reports as of November 2020. We performed economic calculations of costs in 2020 U.S. dollars and effectiveness in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the budget impact and incremental cost-effectiveness at a $100,000/QALY threshold. RESULTS: Vaccines have a high probability of reducing healthcare costs and increasing QALYs compared to doing nothing. Simulations showed reductions in hospital days and mortality by more than 50%. Even though this represents a major U.S. investment, the budget impacts of these technologies could save program costs by up to 60% or more if uptake is high. LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation draws on the reported values of the clinical benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, although we do not currently have long-term conclusive data about COVID-19 vaccine efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: Spending on vaccines to mitigate COVID-19 infections offer high-value potential that society should consider. Unusually high uptake in vaccines in a short amount of time could result in unprecedented budget impacts to government and commercial payers. Governments should focus on expanding health system infrastructure and subsidizing payer coverage to deliver these vaccines efficiently.