Impact of COVID-19 on work loss in the United States- A retrospective database analysis.

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.

Economic burden of COVID-19 for employers and employees in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the economic burden of COVID-19 on employers and employees in the United States (US). METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on US-based employers and employees in terms of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), medical costs, and costs associated with work-loss. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit using a combination of disease terms, populations, and outcomes to identify articles published from January 2021 to November 4, 2022. As data from the employer perspective were lacking, additional literature related to influenza were included to contextualize the impact of COVID-19, as it shifts into an endemic state, within the existing respiratory illness landscape. RESULTS: A total of 41 articles were included in the literature review. Employer and employee perspectives were not well represented in the literature, and very few articles overlapped on any given outcome. HCRU, costs, and work impairment vary by community transmission levels, industry type, population demographics, telework ability, mitigation implementation measures, and company policies. Work-loss among COVID-19 cases were higher among the unvaccinated and in the week following diagnosis and for some, these continued for 6 months. HCRU is increased in those with COVID-19 and COVID-19-related HCRU can also continue for 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 continues to be a considerable burden to employers. The majority of COVID-19 cases impact working age adults. HCRU is mainly driven by outpatient visits, while direct costs are driven by hospitalization. Productivity loss is higher for unvaccinated individuals. An increased focus to support mitigation measures may minimize hospitalizations and work-loss. A data-driven approach to implementation of workplace policies, targeted communications, and access to timely and appropriate therapies for prevention and treatment may reduce health-related work-loss and associated cost burden.

In January 2020, the US government declared COVID-19 a public health emergency. This lasted until May 2023. To fight this health emergency, the US government provided free testing, vaccination, and treatment. Although the US government has declared the emergency over, COVID-19 continues to infect people. For people with private health insurance, costs associated with COVID-19 patient healthcare have now been transferred from the government to employers. In this study, we collected information from published scientific articles about the costs of COVID-19 for employers and workers in the US. We found that people who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 required more medical care and cost more than people who were vaccinated. In some cases, this trend lasted for as long as 6 months. This was mostly because of workers missing work, not working effectively while sick, and needing to be hospitalized. People who could work from home, whose companies had policies to prevent infections, and who took steps to avoid getting infected needed less medical care and missed work less often. This information may be used to help develop policies, communications, and guidance to prevent COVID-19 and limit its impact on employers and workers.

Digital dashboards for direct oral anticoagulant surveillance, intervention and operational efficiency: uptake, obstacles, and opportunities.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulants in the United States. Despite advantages over warfarin, system-level improvements are needed to optimize outcomes. While Veterans Health Administration and others have described successful DOAC management dashboard implementation, the extent of use nationally is unknown. A survey of Anticoagulation Forum's members was conducted to assess access to digital tools available within a dashboard and to describe implementation models. An Expert Forum was subsequently convened to identify barriers to dashboard development and adoption. Responses were received from 340 targeted recipients (8.5% of invitees). Only a minority of inpatient (25/52, 48.1%) and outpatient (47/133, 35.3%) respondents outside of Veterans Health Administration were able to generate rosters of DOAC users on-demand, and fewer had the ability to digitally display key clinical data elements, identify drug-related problems, document interventions, or generate reports. The lack of regulatory requirements regarding Anticoagulation Stewardship was identified by the Expert Forum as the major barrier to widespread development of digital tools for improved anticoagulation management. While some health systems have demonstrated the feasibility of DOAC dashboards and described their impact on quality and efficiency, these tools do not appear to be widely available in the United States apart from Veterans Health Administration. The lack of regulatory requirements for Anticoagulation Stewardship may be the primary barrier to the development of digital resources to better manage anticoagulants. Efforts to secure regulatory requirements for Anticoagulation Stewardship are needed, and evidence of improvements in clinical and financial outcomes through DOAC dashboard use will likely bolster such efforts.

Digital dashboards for oral anticoagulation management: a literature scoping review.

This scoping review summarizes the extent and characteristics of the published literature describing digital population management dashboards implemented to improve the quality of anticoagulant management. A standardized search protocol was executed to identify relevant manuscripts published between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2022. The resulting records were systematically evaluated by multiple blinded reviewers and the findings from selected papers were evaluated and summarized. Twelve manuscripts were identified, originating from 5 organizations within the US and 2 from other countries. The majority (75%) described implementation in the outpatient setting. The identified papers described a variety of positive results of dashboard use, including a 24.5% reduction of questionable direct oral anticoagulant dosing in one organization, a 33.3% relative improvement in no-show appointments in an ambulatory care clinic, and a 75% improvement in intervention efficiency. One medical center achieved a 98.4% risk-appropriate venous thromboembolism risk prophylaxis prescribing rate and 40.6% reduction in anticoagulation-related adverse event rates. The manuscripts primarily described retrospective findings from single-center dashboard implementation experiences. Digital dashboards have been successfully implemented to support the anticoagulation of acute and ambulatory patients and available manuscripts suggest a positive impact on care-related processes and relevant patient outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to better characterize the implementation and impact of dashboards for anticoagulation management. Published reports suggest that digital dashboards may improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of anticoagulation management. Additional research is needed to validate these findings and to understand how best to implement these tools.

A systematic review of primary care-focused, self-reported medication adherence tools.

BACKGROUND: Clinician recognition of nonadherence is generally low. Tools that clinicians have used to assess medication adherence are self-reported adherence instruments that ask patients questions about their medication use experience. There is a need for more structured reviews that help clinicians comprehensively distinguish which tool might be most useful and valuable for their clinical setting and patient populations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to (1) identify validated, self-reported medication adherence tools that are applicable to the primary care setting and (2) summarize selected features of the tools as an assessment of clinical feasibility and applicability. METHODS: The investigators systematically reviewed MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL from inception to December 1, 2020. Investigators independently screened 3394 citations, identifying 43 articles describing validation parameters for 25 unique adherence tools. After screening each tool, 17 tools met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively summarized. RESULTS: Findings highlight 25 various tool characteristics (i.e., descriptions, parameters and diseases, measures and validity comparators, and other information), which clinicians might consider when selecting a self-reported adherence tool with strong measurement validity that is practical to administer to patients. There was much variability about the nature and extent of adherence measurement. Considerable variation was noted in the objective measures used to correlate to the self-reported tools' measurements. There were wide ranges of correlation between self-reported and objective measures. Several included tools had relatively low to moderate criterion validities. Many manuscripts did not describe whether tools were associated with costs, had copyrights, and were available in other languages; how much time was required for patients to complete self-report tools; and whether patient input informed tool development. CONCLUSION: There is a critical need to ensure that adherence tool developers establish a key list of tool characteristics to report to help clinicians and researchers make practical comparisons among tools.