Fitting and validation of an agent-based model for COVID-19 case forecasting in workplaces and universities.

COVID-19 forecasting models have been critical in guiding decision-making on surveillance testing, social distancing, and vaccination requirements. Beyond influencing public health policies, an accurate COVID-19 forecasting model can impact community spread by enabling employers and university leaders to adapt worksite policies and practices to contain or mitigate outbreaks. While many such models have been developed for COVID-19 forecasting at the national, state, county, or city level, only a few models have been developed for workplaces and universities. Furthermore, COVID-19 forecasting models have rarely been validated against real COVID-19 case data. Here we present the systematic parameter fitting and validation of an agent-based compartment model for the forecasting of daily COVID-19 cases in single-site workplaces and universities with real-world data. Our approaches include manual fitting, where initial model parameters are chosen based on historical data, and automated fitting, where parameters are chosen based on candidate case trajectory simulations that result in best fit to prevalence estimation data. We use a 14-day fitting window and validate our approaches on 7- and 14-day testing windows with real COVID-19 case data from one employer. Our manual and automated fitting approaches accurately predicted COVID-19 case trends and outperformed the baseline model (no parameter fitting) across multiple scenarios, including a rising case trajectory (RMSLE values: 2.627 for baseline, 0.562 for manual fitting, 0.399 for automated fitting) and a decreasing case trajectory (RMSLE values: 1.155 for baseline, 0.537 for manual fitting, 0.778 for automated fitting). Our COVID-19 case forecasting model allows decision-makers at workplaces and universities to proactively respond to case trend forecasts, mitigate outbreaks, and promote safety.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Clinical Research: A Path Toward Precision Health for Everyone.

Healthcare disparities are a persistent societal problem. One of the contributing factors to this status quo is the lack of diversity and representativeness of research efforts, which result in nongeneralizable evidence that, in turn, provides suboptimal means to enable the best possible outcomes at the individual level. There are several strategies that research teams can adopt to improve the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) of their efforts; these strategies span the totality of the research path, from initial design to the shepherding of clinical data through a potential regulatory process. These strategies include more intentionality and DEI-based goal-setting, more diverse research and leadership teams, better community engagement to set study goals and approaches, better tailored outreach interventions, decentralization of study procedures and incorporation of innovative technology for more flexible data collection, and self-surveillance to identify and prevent biases. Within their remit of overlooking research efforts, regulatory authorities, as stakeholders, also have the potential for a positive effect on the DEI of emerging clinical evidence. All these are implementable tools and mechanisms that can make study participation more approachable to diverse communities, and ultimately generate evidence that is more generalizable and a conduit for better outcomes. The research community has an imperative to make DEI principles key foundational aspects in study conduct in order to pursue better personalized medicine for diverse patient populations.

A holistic approach for suppression of COVID-19 spread in workplaces and universities.

As society has moved past the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis that relied on broad-spectrum shutdowns as a stopgap method, industries and institutions have faced the daunting question of how to return to a stabilized state of activities and more fully reopen the economy. A core problem is how to return people to their workplaces and educational institutions in a manner that is safe, ethical, grounded in science, and takes into account the unique factors and needs of each organization and community. In this paper, we introduce an epidemiological model (the "Community-Workplace" model) that accounts for SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the workplace, within the surrounding community, and between them. We use this multi-group deterministic compartmental model to consider various testing strategies that, together with symptom screening, exposure tracking, and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as mask wearing and physical distancing, aim to reduce disease spread in the workplace. Our framework is designed to be adaptable to a variety of specific workplace environments to support planning efforts as reopenings continue. Using this model, we consider a number of case studies, including an office workplace, a factory floor, and a university campus. Analysis of these cases illustrates that continuous testing can help a workplace avoid an outbreak by reducing undetected infectiousness even in high-contact environments. We find that a university setting, where individuals spend more time on campus and have a higher contact load, requires more testing to remain safe, compared to a factory or office setting. Under the modeling assumptions, we find that maintaining a prevalence below 3% can be achieved in an office setting by testing its workforce every two weeks, whereas achieving this same goal for a university could require as much as fourfold more testing (i.e., testing the entire campus population twice a week). Our model also simulates the dynamics of reduced spread that result from the introduction of mitigation measures when test results reveal the early stages of a workplace outbreak. We use this to show that a vigilant university that has the ability to quickly react to outbreaks can be justified in implementing testing at the same rate as a lower-risk office workplace. Finally, we quantify the devastating impact that an outbreak in a small-town college could have on the surrounding community, which supports the notion that communities can be better protected by supporting their local places of business in preventing onsite spread of disease.

Value-based insurance design in Louisiana: Blue Cross Blue Shield's Zero Dollar Co-pay program.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a program that eliminated pharmacy co-pays, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) program, decreased health care spending. Previous studies have found that value-based insurance designs like the ZDC program have little or no impact on total health care spending. ZDC included an expansive set of medications related to 4 chronic diseases rather than a limited set of medications for 1 or 2 chronic diseases. Additionally, ZDC focused on the most at-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: ZDC began in 2014 and enrolled patients over time based on (1) when a patient answered a call from a nurse care manager and (2) when a patient or their employer changed the benefit structure to meet the program criteria. During 2015 and 2016, 265 patients with at least 1 chronic condition (asthma, diabetes, hypertension, mental illness) enrolled in ZDC. METHODS: Observational study using within-patient variation and variation in patient enrollment month to identify the impact of the ZDC program on health spending measures. We used 100% BCBSLA claims data from January 2015 to June 2018. Monthly level event studies were used to test for differential spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. RESULTS: We found that total spending decreased by $205.9 (P = .049) per member per month, or approximately 18%. We saw a decrease in medical spending ($195.0; P = .023) but did not detect a change in pharmacy spending ($7.59; P = .752). We found no evidence of changes in spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The ZDC program provides evidence that value-based insurance designs that incorporate a comprehensive set of medications and focus on populations with chronic disease can reduce spending.

Evaluating the performance of a predictive modeling approach to identifying members at high-risk of hospitalization.

Aims: To evaluate the risk-of-hospitalization (ROH) models developed at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) and compare this approach to the DxCG risk-score algorithms utilized by many health plans.Materials and Methods: Time zero for this study was December 31, 2016. BCBSLA members were eligible for study inclusion if they were fully insured; aged 80 years or younger; and had continuous enrollment starting on or before June 1, 2016, through time zero. Up to 2 years of historical claims data from time zero per patient was included for model development. Members were excluded if they had cancer, renal failure, or were admitted for hospice. The Blue Cross ROH models were developed using (1) regularized logistic regression and (2) random decision forests (a tree ensemble learning classification method). All models were generated using Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Prognostic capabilities of DxCG risk-score algorithms were compared to those of the Blue Cross models.Results: When stratifying by the top 0.1% of members with the highest ROH, the Blue Cross logistic regression model had the highest area under the receiving operator characteristics curve (0.862) based on the result of 10-fold cross-validation. The Blue Cross random decision forests model had the highest positive predictive value (49.0%) and positive likelihood ratio (61.4), but sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios were similar across all four models.Limitations: The Blue Cross ROH models were developed and evaluated using BCBSLA data, and predictive power may fluctuate if applied to other databases.Conclusions: The predictability of the Blue Cross models show how member-specific, regional data can be used to accurately identify patients with a high ROH, which may allow healthcare workers to intervene earlier and subsequently reduce the healthcare burden for patients and providers.