RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Estresse Financeiro , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde , Custos e Análise de Custo , Custos de Cuidados de SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 morbidity is significantly lower in pediatrics than in adults, the risk of severe COVID-19 may still pose substantial health care resource burden. This study aimed to describe health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with COVID-19 in pediatrics 1-17 years old in England. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study of pediatrics with COVID-19 using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) primary care data and, where available, linked Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care secondary care data. HCRU and associated costs to the National Health Service were stratified by age, risk of severe COVID-19 and immunocompromised status, separately for those with and without hospitalization records (hospitalized cohort: COVID-19 diagnosis August 2020-March 2021; primary care cohort: COVID-19 diagnosis August 2020-January 2022). RESULTS: This study included 564,644 patients in the primary care cohort and 60 in the hospitalized cohort. Primary care consultations were more common in those 1-4 years of age (face-to-face: 4.3%; telephone: 6.0%) compared with those 5-11 (2.0%; 2.1%) and 12-17 years of age (2.2%; 2.5%). In the hospitalized cohort, mean (SD) length of stay was longer [5.0 (5.8) days] among those 12-17 years old (n = 24) than those 1-4 [n = 15; 1.8 (0.9) days] and 5-11 years old [n = 21; 2.8 (2.1) days]. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatrics diagnosed with COVID-19 were managed in the community. However, hospitalizations were an important driver of HCRU and costs, particularly for those 12-17 years old. Our results may help optimize the management and resource allocation of COVID-19 in this population.
Assuntos
Teste para COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Criança , Lactente , Pré-Escolar , Adolescente , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos de Coortes , Medicina Estatal , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Atenção à Saúde , Hospitais , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Custos de Cuidados de SaúdeRESUMO
ABSTRACT: Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) provide long-term electrocardiographic monitoring for a number of indications. However, frequencies of use by indication and temporal changes have not been characterized on a national scale. We sought to characterize overall use and changes between 2011 and 2018. We used generalized linear models to characterize the incidence rate per 1,000,000 patient-quarters at risk and an autoregressive integrated moving average model to account for autocorrelation in this time series data. We studied commercially-insured patients and their insured dependents in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database who had an ICM placed. We described the characteristics of individuals who received ICMs and the frequency of placements into 3 guideline concordance groups. We estimated the mean change per quarter in ICM placements (mean quarterly change in incidence rate per 1,000,000 patient-quarters at risk) for quarter (Q)1 2011 through Q1 2014, Q1 2014 to Q2 2014, and Q2 2014 through Q4 2018 for each guideline concordance group. The most common indications for categorizable ICM placement were syncope (24%), atrial fibrillation (11%), and stroke (11%). For each of the 3 guideline concordance groups except guideline unaddressed inpatient ICM placements, there was a significant increase in use either during the Q1 2014 to Q2 2014 or the Q2 2014 through Q4 2018 periods. A significant portion of ICM placements were for indications that lack strong evidence, such as established atrial fibrillation. The incidence of ICM placement for most of the indications and settings increased after miniaturization and technical improvements.
Assuntos
Demandas Administrativas em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico por imagem , Eletrocardiografia Ambulatorial/instrumentação , Síncope/diagnóstico , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilação Atrial/epidemiologia , Eletrocardiografia , Eletrocardiografia Ambulatorial/economia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Uso Excessivo dos Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Medicare , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/diagnóstico , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. METHODS: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. RESULTS: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. CONCLUSION: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient's perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.