Unveiling the truth: is COVID-19 reimbursement in Colombia a flawed design? A cost-of-illness analysis for moderate, severe and critical infections.

PURPOSE: This study examines the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Colombian Health System, focusing on the adequacy of reimbursement rates for inpatient stays. The study, based on a cost of illness analysis, aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the reimbursement scheme and identify potential economic losses within the health system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study protocol outlines the inclusion criteria for patients >18 years with confirmed COVID-19 infection and moderate to critical disease. Patients hospitalised between June 2020 and June 2021 for at least 24 hours were included. Exclusion criteria involved pregnant patients and those initially hospitalised for non-COVID-19. RESULTS: The study included 781 patients contributing to 790 hospitalisations. Demographic and clinical characteristics were analysed, with critical illness being the most prevalent category (61%). The overall mortality rate was 20.3%, primarily observed in critically ill patients. In the general ward for moderate cases, the reimbursement rate saw a substantial increase from US$3237 in 2020 to US$6760 in 2021, surpassing median resource utilisation. However, for severe cases in the intermediate care unit, reimbursement rates decreased, indicating potential insufficiency in covering costs. In the intensive care unit for critical cases, despite improved reimbursement rates, median resource utilisation still exceeds the 2021 rate, suggesting financial insufficiency in reimbursement rates. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores the inadequacies of the previous reimbursement system in addressing the varying resource utilisation and costs associated with COVID-19 inpatient care. Our analysis reveals substantial discrepancies between estimated costs and actual resource utilisation, particularly for severe and critical cases. We advocate for government flexibility in revising reimbursement baskets, supported by pilot studies to assess effectiveness. The use of real-world evidence forms a crucial basis for informed adjustments to reimbursement levels in preparation for future pandemics. This proactive approach ensures alignment between reimbursement policies and the actual costs associated.

Risk of Serious Infections Associated with Biologic Agents in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether treatment with biologic response modifying agents during clinical trial study periods increases the risk of serious infections in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and the clinical trial registry was performed up to July 2017. Random effects meta-analyses were used to compare rates of serious infections in children with JIA given biologic agents compared with controls, and the pooled relative risk calculated. Subanalyses were performed for different biologic agent classes. RESULTS: In total, 19 trials accounting for 21 individual studies were included (11 for tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors [n = 814 patients], 3 for interleukin-6 inhibitors [n = 318], 6 for interleukin-1 inhibitors [n = 353], and 1 for selective T-lymphocyte costimulation modulators [n = 122]). Patients (68% female) had a mean age of 10.8 years. Seventeen serious infections were reported among 810 children receiving biologic agents and 15 among 797 controls. The most frequent infections were bronchopulmonary and varicella. No statistically significant difference in risk of serious infections was found between children receiving biologic agents compared with control groups (pooled relative risk = 1.13; 95% CI [0.63, 2.03]) during the trial study periods. The risk remained nonsignificant when evaluating the different classes of biologic agents separately. However, the analyses were underpowered to detect differences in the risk of serious infections overall or differences between classes of biologic agents. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analyses, serious infections were uncommon and not significantly increased among patients with JIA receiving biologic agents compared with controls. However, the analyses were underpowered and study periods were relatively short. Ongoing careful monitoring for serious infections remains necessary for all patients with JIA, and particularly those receiving biologic agents.