Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 740
Filter
1.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 43(7): 994-1002, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38950307

ABSTRACT

US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , United States , Physicians/economics , Pandemics/economics , Medicine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Specialization/economics
2.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 43(7): 933-941, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38950305

ABSTRACT

The Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (NGACO) model (active during 2016-21) tested the effects of high financial risk, payment mechanisms, and flexible care delivery on health care spending and value for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. We used quasi-experimental methods to examine the model's effects on Medicare Parts A and B spending. Sixty-two ACOs with more than 4.2 million beneficiaries and more than 91,000 practitioners participated in the model. The model was associated with a $270 per beneficiary per year, or approximately $1.7 billion, decline in Medicare spending. After shared savings payments to ACOs were included, the model increased net Medicare spending by $56 per beneficiary per year, or $96.7 million. Annual declines in spending for the model grew over time, reflecting exit by poorer-performing NGACOs, improvement among the remaining NGACOs, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Larger declines in spending occurred among physician practice ACOs and ACOs that elected population-based payments and risk caps greater than 5 percent.


Subject(s)
Accountable Care Organizations , Health Expenditures , Medicare , Accountable Care Organizations/economics , United States , Humans , Medicare/economics , Fee-for-Service Plans/economics , COVID-19/economics , Cost Savings
3.
PLoS One ; 19(7): e0305835, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38968247

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate hospital services utilisation and cost among the Indonesian population enrolled in the National Health Insurance (NHI) program before and after COVID-19 hospital treatment. METHODS: 28,159 Indonesian NHI enrolees treated with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in hospitals between May and August 2020 were compared to 8,995 individuals never diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2020. A difference-in-difference approach is used to contrast the monthly all-cause utilisation rate and total claims of hospital services between these two groups. A period of nine months before and three to six months after hospital treatment were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A substantial short-term increase in hospital services utilisation and cost before and after COVID-19 treatment was observed. Using the fifth month before treatment as the reference period, we observed an increased outpatient visits rate in 1-3 calendar months before and up to 2-4 months after treatment (p<0.001) among the COVID-19 group compared to the comparison group. We also found a higher admissions rate in 1-2 months before and one month after treatment (p<0.001). Consequently, increased hospital costs were observed in 1-3 calendar months before and 1-4 calendar months after the treatment (p<0.001). The elevated hospital resource utilisation was more prominent among individuals older than 40. Overall, no substantial increase in hospital outpatient visits, admissions, and costs beyond four months after and five months before COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSION: Individuals with COVID-19 who required hospital treatment had considerably higher healthcare resource utilisation in the short-term, before and after the treatment. These findings indicated that the total cost of treating COVID-19 patients might include the pre- and post-acute period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/therapy , Indonesia/epidemiology , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Hospitalization/economics , Aged , Adolescent , Young Adult , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Child, Preschool , Infant , Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data , National Health Programs/economics
4.
PLoS One ; 19(7): e0305724, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39008440

ABSTRACT

This study explores the effects of banking uncertainty on firms' debt financing. Employing data from 2007 to 2022 of Vietnam-a bank-based economy, we document that banking uncertainty negatively impacts corporate debt. The impact firmly holds across various debt maturities and sources, with the most predominant driver witnessed in bank debt. We also investigate the potential underlying mechanism linking banking uncertainty to debt financing, thereby validating the working of three crucial channels, including increased costs of debt, substitution of trade credit, and contractions in firm investment. Furthermore, conducting extended analysis, we find that debt financing exhibits more pronounced reactions to banking uncertainty for firms with closer ties to banks or during macroeconomic shocks, as captured by the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings survive after robustness checks by alternative measurement, static and dynamic econometric models, and endogeneity controls.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vietnam , Uncertainty , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Investments/economics , Commerce/economics , Banking, Personal/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Financial Management , Pandemics/economics
5.
J Med Econ ; 27(1): 941-951, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38984895

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the utilization of work absence benefits among United States (US) employees diagnosed with COVID-19, examining frequency, duration, cost, and types of work loss benefits used. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the Workpartners Research Reference Database (RRDb) included employees eligible for short- and long-term disability (STD and LTD employer-sponsored benefits, respectively), and other paid work absence benefits from 2018 to 2022. Workpartners RRDb includes over 3.5 million employees from over 500 self-insured employers across the US. Employees were identified by codes from adjudicated medical and disability claims for COVID-19 (2020-2022) and influenza, as well as prescription claims for COVID-19 treatments. Associated payments were quantified for each absence reason. RESULTS: Approximately 1 million employees were eligible for employer-sponsored paid leave benefits between January 2018 and December 2022. The mean age was 37 years (22% >50 years), and 49.4% were females. COVID-19 was the 2nd most common reason for an STD claim (6.9% of all STD claims) and 13th for an LTD claim (1.7% of all LTD claims) from 2020-2022. The mean duration for COVID-19 STD claims was 24 days (N = 3,731, mean claim=$3,477) versus 10 days for influenza (N = 283, mean claim=$1,721). The mean duration for an LTD claim for COVID-19 was 153 days (N = 11, mean claim=$19,254). Only 21.5% of employees with STD claims in the COVID-19 cohort had prior COVID-19-associated medical or pharmacy claims; over half (range 53%-61%) had documented high risk factors for severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 and influenza have the potential to cause work loss in otherwise healthy employees. In this analysis, COVID-19 was the second most frequent reason for an STD claim at the start of the pandemic and remained high (ranked 5th) in 2022. These results highlight the impact of COVID-19 on work loss beyond the acute phase. Comprehensively evaluating work loss implications may help employers prioritize strategies, such as vaccinations and timely treatments, to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on employees and their companies.


COVID-19 results in short- and long-term symptoms that may affect employees' ability to work. Short- and long-term disability (STD and LTD, respectively), other work absences, and medical and pharmacy claims from the Workpartners Research Reference Database were analyzed for US adult (≥18 years) employees. COVID-19 claims were identified using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended International Classification of Diseases codes during the analysis from 2020 to 2022. During 2020 to 2022, COVID-19 ranked as the second most frequent reason for STD claims and 13th most frequent among LTD claims. Influenza ranked 58th overall with no LTD claims (2018­2022). The average COVID-19 STD claim lasted 24 days and cost employers $3,477 per claim, and LTD claims averaged 153 days, costing $19,254. Only 21.5% of employees with STD claims in the COVID-19 cohort had prior COVID-19-associated medical or pharmacy claims, and over half (range 53%­61%) had a documented high-risk factor for severe COVID-19. Our results highlight the ongoing and substantial impact of COVID-19 on work absence benefit utilization beyond the acute phase. This analysis demonstrates the need for employers and researchers to review all available medical, pharmacy, and disability claims to assess the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on employees and prioritize mitigation strategies to reduce the burden of the virus to their employees.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sick Leave , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , United States , Retrospective Studies , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Sick Leave/statistics & numerical data , Sick Leave/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Insurance Claim Review , Databases, Factual , Young Adult , Absenteeism
6.
Epidemiol Serv Saude ; 33: e2023830, 2024.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38985065

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic burden associated with COVID-19 in Córdoba, Colombia, 2020 and 2021. METHODS: Economic burden study. Direct costs were analyzed from the third-party payer perspective using healthcare administrative databases and interviews from a cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases from Córdoba. Costing aggregation was performed by the bottom-up method. Indirect costs were estimated using the productivity loss approach. Contrast tests and statistical models were estimated at 5% significance. RESULTS: We studied 1,800 COVID-19 cases. The average economic cost of COVID-19 per episode was estimated at US$ 2,519 (95%CI 1,980;3,047). The direct medical cost component accounted for 92.9% of the total; out-of-pocket and indirect costs accounted for 2% and 5.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 economic cost was mainly due to direct medical costs. This study provided evidence of the economic burden faced by households due to COVID-19, with the most vulnerable households bearing much of the burden on their income.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost of Illness , Health Expenditures , Humans , Colombia/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Male , Female , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Adult , Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult , Aged , Adolescent
7.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 779, 2024 Jul 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38977967

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic affected hundreds of millions of people and lives, and vaccination was the safest and most effective strategy to prevent and mitigate the burden of this disease. The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam in 2021 was unprecedentedly challenging in scale and complexity, yet economic evidence on the cost of delivery vaccines thought the program was lacking. METHODS: This retrospective costing study utilized a bottom-up, ingredient-based approach to estimate the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021, from a payer perspective. The study included 38 study sites across all administrative and implementation level, including three geographic areas and two delivery strategies, in two provinces, Hanoi and Dak Lak. The study findings were complemented with qualitative interviews with health staff and stakeholders. RESULTS: The economic cost to deliver one COVID-19 vaccine dose was $1.73, mostly comprised of opportunity costs ($1.14 per dose) which were driven by labor costs ($1.12 per dose). The delivery cost in urban areas was the highest ($2.02), followed by peri-urban areas ($1.45) and remote areas ($1.37). Delivery costs were higher at temporary sites ($1.78) when compared to facility-based delivery ($1.63). Comparing low-volume and high-volume periods showed that the delivery cost decreased significantly as volume increased, from $5.24 per dose to $1.65 per dose. CONCLUSIONS: The study estimates the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021. Enabling factors and challenges during the implementation of the program were explored. Study limitations may lead to underestimation of results and reduce generalizability.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Vietnam , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Immunization Programs/economics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration
8.
BMC Public Health ; 24(1): 1900, 2024 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39014354

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for 51% of total mortality in South Africa, with a rising burden of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Incorporating NCDs and COVID-19 screening into mass activities such as COVID-19 vaccination programs could offer significant long-term benefits for early detection interventions. However, there is limited knowledge of the associated costs and resources required. We evaluated the cost of integrating NCD screening and COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) into a COVID-19 vaccination program. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cost analysis at three public sector primary healthcare clinics and one academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting vaccinations. Participants were assessed for eligibility and recruited during May-Dec 2022. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach and reported in 2022 USD. RESULTS: Of the 1,376 enrolled participants, 240 opted in to undergo a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, and none tested positive for COVID-19. 138 (10.1%) had elevated blood pressure, with 96 (70%) having no prior HTN diagnosis. 22 (1.6%) were screen-positive for DM, with 12 (55%) having no prior diagnosis. The median cost per person screened for NCDs was $1.70 (IQR: $1.38-$2.49), respectively. The average provider cost per person found to have elevated blood glucose levels and blood pressure was $157.99 and $25.19, respectively. Finding a potentially new case of DM and HTN was $289.65 and $36.21, respectively. For DM and DM + HTN screen-positive participants, diagnostic tests were the main cost driver, while staff costs were the main cost driver for DM- and HTN screen-negative and HTN screen-positive participants. The median cost per Ag-RDT was $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs. CONCLUSIONS: We show the cost of finding potentially new cases of DM and HTN in a vaccine queue, which is an essential first step in understanding the feasibility and resource requirements for such initiatives. However, there is a need for comparative economic analyses that include linkage to care and retention data to fully understand this cost and determine whether opportunistic screening should be added to general mass health activities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , Hypertension , Mass Screening , Humans , South Africa/epidemiology , Hypertension/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Mass Screening/economics , Mass Screening/methods , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Adult , Middle Aged
9.
BMC Prim Care ; 25(1): 233, 2024 Jun 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38943076

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing link workers are non-health or social care professionals who connect people with psychosocial needs to non-clinical community supports. They are being implemented widely, but there is limited evidence for appropriate target populations or cost effectiveness. This study aimed to explore the feasibility, potential impact on health outcomes and cost effectiveness of practice-based link workers for people with multimorbidity living in deprived urban communities. METHODS: A pragmatic exploratory randomised trial with wait-list usual care control and blinding at analysis was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic (July 2020 to January 2021). Participants had two or more ongoing health conditions, attended a general practitioner (GP) serving a deprived urban community who felt they may benefit from a one-month practice-based social prescribing link worker intervention.. Feasibility measures were recruitment and retention of participants, practices and link workers, and completion of outcome data. Primary outcomes at one month were health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and mental health (HADS). Potential cost effectiveness from the health service perspective was evaluated using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on conversion of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A capability index to utility scoring. RESULTS: From a target of 600, 251 patients were recruited across 13 general practices. Randomisation to intervention (n = 123) and control (n = 117) was after baseline data collection. Participant retention at one month was 80%. All practices and link workers (n = 10) were retained for the trial period. Data completion for primary outcomes was 75%. There were no significant differences identified using mixed effects regression analysis in EQ-5D-5L (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.09) or HADS (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.73), and no cost effectiveness advantages. A sensitivity analysis that considered link workers operating at full capacity in a non-pandemic setting, indicated the probability of effectiveness at the €45,000 ICER threshold value for Ireland was 0.787 using the ICECAP-A capability index. CONCLUSIONS: While the trial under-recruited participants mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, it demonstrates that robust evaluations and cost utility analyses are possible. Further evaluations are required to establish cost effectiveness and should consider using the ICE-CAP-A wellbeing measure for cost utility analysis. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ISRCTN. TITLE: Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas. TRIAL ID: ISRCTN10287737. Date registered 10/12/2019. Link: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10287737.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feasibility Studies , General Practice , Multimorbidity , Humans , Male , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Middle Aged , General Practice/economics , Quality of Life , Urban Population , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Adult , Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 121(26): e2321978121, 2024 Jun 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38885387

ABSTRACT

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments directly funded vaccine research and development (R&D), quickly leading to multiple effective vaccines and resulting in enormous health and economic benefits to society. We develop a simple economic model showing this feat could potentially be repeated for other health challenges. Based on inputs from the economic and medical literatures, the model yields estimates of optimal R&D spending on treatments and vaccines for known diseases. Taking a global and societal perspective, we estimate the social benefits of such spending and a corresponding rate of return. Applications to Streptococcus A vaccines and Alzheimer's disease treatments demonstrate the potential of enhanced research and development funding to unlock massive global health and health-related benefits. We estimate that these benefits range from 2 to 60 trillion (2020 US$) and that the corresponding rates of return on R&D spending range from 12% to 23% per year for 30 y. We discuss the current shortfall in R&D spending and public policies that can move current funding closer to the optimal level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Models, Economic , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis
11.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 22(1): 70, 2024 Jun 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38915031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Policy , Health Services Research , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mediterranean Region , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economics , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Middle East
12.
PLoS One ; 19(6): e0306190, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38917198

ABSTRACT

The inefficiency observed in investment within state-owned enterprises presents a significant practical challenge that can affect the sustainable development of China's economy. To address this issue, this study comprehensively explores the intricate mechanisms underlying the governance implications of mixed ownership on the investment efficiency of listed companies. Drawing on unbalanced panel data encompassing Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange A-share listed companies in China spanning the period from 2008 to 2022, this study employs a fixed-effects model to unveil the nuanced ways in which mixed ownership influences investment efficiency through the lens of agency costs. This study transcends the boundaries of traditional agency conflicts between managers and shareholders. It delves deeper, illuminating the diverse effects of agency conflicts between significant controlling shareholders and minority shareholders. The results revealed a noteworthy positive correlation between mixed ownership and investment efficiency, and verified the intermediary role of agency costs between mixed ownership and investment efficiency, which is an important result of our research. Heterogeneity analysis indicates that the relationship between the two can be affected by external events, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, investment efficiency is not the most concerned issue for enterprises. The findings have practical implications for practitioners and policymakers, as they offer avenues for optimizing investment strategies and fostering efficient and effective corporate governance practices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Investments , Ownership , China , Investments/economics , Ownership/economics , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economics
13.
Crit Care Explor ; 6(7): e1105, 2024 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38904975

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the utilization of early ketamine use among patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19, and examine associations with in-hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six hundred ten hospitals contributing data to the Premier Healthcare Database between April 2020 and June 2021. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19 and greater than or equal to 2 consecutive days of mechanical ventilation within 5 days of hospitalization. INTERVENTION: The exposures were early ketamine use initiated within 2 days of intubation and continued for greater than 1 day. MEASUREMENTS: Primary was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and ICUs, ventilator days, vasopressor days, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and total hospital cost. The propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust for confounders. MAIN RESULTS: Among 42,954 patients, 1,423 (3.3%) were exposed to early ketamine use. After propensity score matching including 1,390 patients in each group, recipients of ketamine infusions were associated with higher hospital mortality (52.5% vs. 45.9%, risk ratio: 1.14, [1.06-1.23]), longer median ICU stay (13 vs. 12 d, mean ratio [MR]: 1.15 [1.08-1.23]), and longer ventilator days (12 vs. 11 d, MR: 1.19 [1.12-1.27]). There were no associations for hospital LOS (17 [10-27] vs. 17 [9-28], MR: 1.05 [0.99-1.12]), vasopressor days (4 vs. 4, MR: 1.04 [0.95-1.14]), and RRT (22.9% vs. 21.7%, RR: 1.05 [0.92-1.21]). Total hospital cost was higher (median $72,481 vs. $65,584, MR: 1.11 [1.05-1.19]). CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse sample of U.S. hospitals, about one in 30 patients mechanically ventilated with COVID-19 received ketamine infusions. Early ketamine may have an association with higher hospital mortality, increased total cost, ICU stay, and ventilator days, but no associations for hospital LOS, vasopressor days, and RRT. However, confounding by the severity of illness might occur due to higher extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and RRT use in the ketamine group. Further randomized trials are needed to better understand the role of ketamine infusions in the management of critically ill patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , Ketamine , Length of Stay , Respiration, Artificial , Humans , Ketamine/therapeutic use , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Ketamine/economics , Respiration, Artificial/economics , Retrospective Studies , Male , Female , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/economics , Middle Aged , Aged , Length of Stay/economics , Intensive Care Units/economics , Cohort Studies , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Hypnotics and Sedatives/economics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data , Propensity Score
14.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 13607, 2024 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38871878

ABSTRACT

Fair allocation of funding in multi-centre clinical studies is challenging. Models commonly used in Germany - the case fees ("fixed-rate model", FRM) and up-front staffing and consumables ("up-front allocation model", UFAM) lack transparency and fail to suitably accommodate variations in centre performance. We developed a performance-based reimbursement model (PBRM) with automated calculation of conducted activities and applied it to the cohorts of the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM). The study protocol activities, which were derived from data management systems, underwent validation through standardized quality checks by multiple stakeholders. The PBRM output (first funding period) was compared among centres and cohorts, and the cost-efficiency of the models was evaluated. Cases per centre varied from one to 164. The mean case reimbursement differed among the cohorts (1173.21€ [95% CI 645.68-1700.73] to 3863.43€ [95% CI 1468.89-6257.96]) and centres and mostly fell short of the expected amount. Model comparisons revealed higher cost-efficiency of the PBRM compared to FRM and UFAM, especially for low recruitment outliers. In conclusion, we have developed a reimbursement model that is transparent, accurate, and flexible. In multi-centre collaborations where heterogeneity between centres is expected, a PBRM could be used as a model to address performance discrepancies.Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04768998 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04747366 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04679584 .


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Germany , Reimbursement Mechanisms , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics
15.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1105518, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38827622

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic had a strong territorial dimension, with a highly asymmetric impact among Romanian counties, depending on pre-existing vulnerabilities, regions' economic structure, exposure to global value chains, specialization, and overall ability to shift a large share of employees to remote working. The aim of this paper is to assess the role of Romanian local authorities during this unprecedented global medical emergency by capturing the changes of public spending at the local level between 2010 and 2021 and amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify clusters of Romanian counties that shared similar characteristics in this period, using a panel data quantitative model and hierarchical cluster analysis. Our empirical analysis shows that between 2010-2021, the impact of social assistance expenditures was higher than public investment (capital spending and EU funds) on the GDP per capita at county level. Additionally, based on various macroeconomic and structural indicators (health, labour market performance, economic development, entrepreneurship, and both local public revenues and several types of expenditures), we determined seven clusters of counties. The research contributes to the discussion regarding the increase of economic resilience but also to the evidence-based public policies implementation at local level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Romania/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economics , Public Policy , Cluster Analysis , Local Government
16.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1363451, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38846605

ABSTRACT

Background: Public health emergencies have a lasting impact on a country's economic and social development. However, commercial insurance can disperse these negative consequences and reduce risk losses. Method: Based on the Chinese Household Tracking Survey and Peking University Digital Inclusive Finance Index, this study employed a difference-in-differences model to test the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on commercial insurance participation and the impact mechanism. Results: The analysis showed that the outbreak of COVID-19 improved residents' risk perception, risk preference and digital finance and promoted their participation in commercial insurance, commercial endowment insurance, and commercial medical insurance. Conclusion: Major public health emergencies can increase commercial insurance participation, but the promotional effect of commercial insurance on rural and low-income individuals is relatively limited. To tap into potential customers, financial institutions should focus on vulnerable societal groups. This study supplements the relevant literature on the impact of major public health emergencies on commercial insurance participation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergencies , Public Health , Humans , China/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , SARS-CoV-2
17.
PLoS One ; 19(6): e0300936, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38843206

ABSTRACT

The study aims to uncover the impact of COVID-19 and capital structure on the financial performance of 1787 renewable and nonrenewable energy firms in China from 2010 to 2022. Using the fixed effect approach, our study found that financial leverage negatively affected the return on assets and equity ratios for both renewable and nonrenewable energy. On the other hand, the study shows that COVID-19 adversely affected the financial performances of non-renewable energy firms. Conversely, COVID-19 positively affected the financial performances of renewable energy firms. The conclusions drawn by the present study are helpful for the policymakers in making corresponding financial decisions. The study suggests that policymakers must adopt profitable capital structure strategies for firms and shareholders in this context. Finally, policymakers must design more policies to overcome the adverse influence of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and avoid any future unforeseeable pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , China/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Pandemics/economics , Industry/economics , Renewable Energy/economics
18.
PLoS One ; 19(6): e0301785, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38870106

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused over 7.02 million deaths as of January 2024 and profoundly affected most countries' Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Here, we study the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mortality, and economic output between January 2020 and December 2022 across 25 European countries. METHODS: We use a Bayesian mixed effects model with auto-regressive terms to estimate the temporal relationships between disease transmission, excess deaths, changes in economic output, transit mobility and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) across countries. RESULTS: Disease transmission intensity (logRt) decreases GDP and increases excess deaths, where the latter association is longer-lasting. Changes in GDP as well as prior week transmission intensity are both negatively associated with each other (-0.241, 95% CrI: -0.295 - -0.189). We find evidence of risk-averse behaviour, as changes in transit and prior week transmission intensity are negatively associated (-0.055, 95% CrI: -0.074 to -0.036). Our results highlight a complex cost-benefit trade-off from individual NPIs. For example, banning international travel is associated with both increases in GDP (0.014, 0.002-0.025) and decreases in excess deaths (-0.014, 95% CrI: -0.028 - -0.001). Country-specific random effects, such as the poverty rate, are positively associated with excess deaths while the UN government effectiveness index is negatively associated with excess deaths. INTERPRETATION: The interplay between transmission intensity, excess deaths, population mobility and economic output is highly complex, and none of these factors can be considered in isolation. Our results reinforce the intuitive idea that significant economic activity arises from diverse person-to-person interactions. Our analysis quantifies and highlights that the impact of disease on a given country is complex and multifaceted. Long-term economic impairments are not fully captured by our model, as well as long-term disease effects (Long COVID).


Subject(s)
Bayes Theorem , COVID-19 , Gross Domestic Product , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/economics , Humans , Europe/epidemiology , Travel
19.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 12(7): 462-471, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38843849

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Excess weight is a major risk factor for severe disease after infection with SARS-CoV-2. However, the effect of BMI on COVID-19 hospital resource use has not been fully quantified. This study aimed to identify the association between BMI and hospital resource use for COVID-19 admissions with the intention of informing future national hospital resource allocation. METHODS: In this community-based cohort study, we analysed patient-level data from 57 415 patients admitted to hospital in England with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021. Patients who were aged 20-99 years, had been registered with a general practitioner (GP) surgery that contributed to the QResearch database for the whole preceding year (2019) with at least one BMI value measured before April 1, 2020, available in their GP record, and were admitted to hospital for COVID-19 were included. Outcomes of interest were duration of hospital stay, transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU), and duration of ICU stay. Costs of hospitalisation were estimated from these outcomes. Generalised linear and logit models were used to estimate associations between BMI and hospital resource use outcomes. FINDINGS: Patients living with obesity (BMI >30·0 kg/m2) had longer hospital stays relative to patients in the reference BMI group (18·5-25·0 kg/m2; IRR 1·07, 95% CI 1·03-1·10); the reference group had a mean length of stay of 8·82 days (95% CI 8·62-9·01). Patients living with obesity were more likely to be admitted to ICU than the reference group (OR 2·02, 95% CI 1·86-2·19); the reference group had a mean probability of ICU admission of 5·9% (95% CI 5·5-6·3). No association was found between BMI and duration of ICU stay. The mean cost of COVID-19 hospitalisation was £19 877 (SD 17 918) in the reference BMI group. Hospital costs were estimated to be £2736 (95% CI 2224-3248) higher for patients living with obesity. INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a BMI above the healthy range had longer stays, were more likely to be admitted to ICU, and had higher health-care costs associated with hospital treatment of COVID-19 infection as a result. This information can inform national resource allocation to match hospital capacity to areas where BMI profiles indicate higher demand. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Length of Stay , Obesity , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/therapy , Middle Aged , Male , Female , Aged , England/epidemiology , Adult , Hospitalization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and over , Obesity/epidemiology , Obesity/economics , Obesity/therapy , Cohort Studies , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/economics , Intensive Care Units/economics , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Resources/economics , Health Resources/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...