Modeling Nursing Home Harms From COVID-19 Staff Furlough Policies.

Importance: Current guidance to furlough health care staff with mild COVID-19 illness may prevent the spread of COVID-19 but may worsen nursing home staffing shortages as well as health outcomes that are unrelated to COVID-19. Objective: To compare COVID-19-related with non-COVID-19-related harms associated with allowing staff who are mildly ill with COVID-19 to work while masked. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study, conducted from November 2023 to June 2024, used an agent-based model representing a 100-bed nursing home and its residents, staff, and their interactions; care tasks; and resident and staff health outcomes to simulate the impact of different COVID-19 furlough policies over 1 postpandemic year. Exposures: Simulating increasing proportions of staff who are mildly ill and are allowed to work while wearing N95 respirators under various vaccination coverage, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility and severity, and masking adherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were staff and resident COVID-19 cases, staff furlough days, missed care tasks, nursing home resident hospitalizations (related and unrelated to COVID-19), deaths, and costs. Results: In the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study's 100-bed agent-based model, nursing home understaffing resulted in an annual mean (SD) 93.7 (0.7) missed care tasks daily (22.1%), 38.0 (7.6) resident hospitalizations (5.2%), 4.6 (2.2) deaths (0.6%), and 39.7 (19.8) quality-adjusted life years lost from non-COVID-19-related harms, costing $1 071 950 ($217 200) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) perspective and $1 112 800 ($225 450) from the societal perspective. Under the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant conditions from 2023 to 2024, furloughing all staff who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a mean (SD) 326.5 (69.1) annual furlough days and 649.5 (95% CI, 593.4-705.6) additional missed care tasks, resulting in 4.3 (95% CI, 2.9-5.9) non-COVID-19-related resident hospitalizations and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.2-1.1) deaths, costing an additional $247 090 (95% CI, $203 160-$291 020) from the CMS perspective and $405 250 (95% CI, $358 550-$451 950) from the societal perspective. Allowing 75% of staff who were mildly ill to work while masked was associated with 5 additional staff and 5 additional resident COVID-19 cases without added COVID-19-related hospitalizations but mitigated staffing shortages, with 475.9 additional care tasks being performed annually, 3.5 fewer non-COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 0.4 fewer non-COVID-19-related deaths. Allowing staff who were mildly ill to work ultimately saved an annual mean $85 470 (95% CI, $41 210-$129 730) from the CMS perspective and $134 450 (95% CI, $86 370-$182 540) from the societal perspective. These results were robust to increased vaccination coverage, increased nursing home transmission, increased importation of COVID-19 from the community, and failure to mask while working ill. Conclusion and Relevance: In this modeling study of staff COVID-19 furlough policies, allowing nursing home staff to work with mild COVID-19 illness was associated with fewer resident harms from staffing shortages and missed care tasks than harms from increased COVID-19 transmission, ultimately saving substantial direct medical and societal costs.

The Need to Focus More on Climate Change Communication and Incorporate More Systems Approaches.

Society is at an inflection point-both in terms of climate change and the amount of data and computational resources currently available. Climate change has been a catastrophe in slow motion with relationships between human activity, climate change, and the resulting effects forming a complex system. However, to date, there has been a general lack of urgent responses from leaders and the general public, despite urgent warnings from the scientific community about the consequences of climate change and what can be done to mitigate it. Further, misinformation and disinformation about climate change abound. A major problem is that there has not been enough focus on communication in the climate change field. Since communication itself involves complex systems (e.g. information users, information itself, communications channels), there is a need for more systems approaches to communication about climate change. Utilizing systems approaches to really understand and anticipate how information may be distributed and received before communication has even occurred and adjust accordingly can lead to more proactive precision climate change communication. The time has come to identify and develop more effective, tailored, and precise communication for climate change.

A Systems Map of the Challenges of Climate Communication.

Over the past sixty years, scientists have been warning about climate change and its impacts on human health, but evidence suggests that many may not be heeding these concerns. This raises the question of whether new communication approaches are needed to overcome the unique challenges of communicating what people can do to slow or reverse climate change. To better elucidate the challenges of communicating about the links between human activity, climate change and its effects, and identify potential solutions, we developed a systems map of the factors and processes involved based on systems mapping sessions with climate change and communication experts. The systems map revealed 27 communication challenges such as "Limited information on how individual actions contribute to collective human activity," "Limited information on how present activity leads to long-term effects," and "Difficult to represent and communicate complex relationships." The systems map also revealed several themes among the identified challenges that exist in communicating about climate change, including a lack of available data and integrated databases, climate change disciplines working in silos, a need for a lexicon that is easily understood by the public, and the need for new communication strategies to describe processes that take time to manifest.

What Is the Economic Benefit of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination From the Adult Individual Perspective?

BACKGROUND: With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination no longer mandated by many businesses/organizations, it is now up to individuals to decide whether to get any new boosters/updated vaccines going forward. METHODS: We developed a Markov model representing the potential clinical/economic outcomes from an individual perspective in the United States of getting versus not getting an annual COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: For an 18-49 year old, getting vaccinated at its current price ($60) can save the individual on average $30-$603 if the individual is uninsured and $4-$437 if the individual has private insurance, as long as the starting vaccine efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is ≥50% and the weekly risk of getting infected is ≥0.2%, corresponding to an individual interacting with 9 other people in a day under Winter 2023-2024 Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant conditions with an average infection prevalence of 10%. For a 50-64 year old, these cost-savings increase to $111-$1278 and $119-$1706 for someone without and with insurance, respectively. The risk threshold increases to ≥0.4% (interacting with 19 people/day), when the individual has 13.4% preexisting protection against infection (eg, vaccinated 9 months earlier). CONCLUSIONS: There is both clinical and economic incentive for the individual to continue to get vaccinated against COVID-19 each year.

How the Timing of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination of Nursing Home Residents and Staff Affects Its Value.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of an annual nursing home (NH) COVID-19 vaccine campaign and the impact of when vaccination starts. DESIGN: Agent-based model representing a typical NH. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: NH residents and staff. METHODS: We used the model representing an NH with 100 residents, its staff, their interactions, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of varying schedules of annual COVID-19 vaccine campaigns. RESULTS: Across a range of scenarios with a 60% vaccine efficacy that wanes starting 4 months after protection onset, vaccination was cost saving or cost-effective when initiated in the late summer or early fall. Annual vaccination averted 102 to 105 COVID-19 cases when 30-day vaccination campaigns began between July and October (varying with vaccination start), decreasing to 97 and 85 cases when starting in November and December, respectively. Starting vaccination between July and December saved $3340 to $4363 and $64,375 to $77,548 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and societal perspectives, respectively (varying with vaccination start). Vaccination's value did not change when varying the COVID-19 peak between December and February. The ideal vaccine campaign timing was not affected by reducing COVID-19 levels in the community, or varying transmission probability, preexisting immunity, or COVID-19 severity. However, if vaccine efficacy wanes more quickly (over 1 month), earlier vaccination in July resulted in more cases compared with vaccinating later in October. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Annual vaccination of NH staff and residents averted the most cases when initiated in the late summer through early fall, at least 2 months before the COVID-19 winter peak but remained cost saving or cost-effective when it starts in the same month as the peak. This supports tethering COVID vaccination to seasonal influenza campaigns (typically in September-October) for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 winter surges in NHs.

The potential epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of a universal coronavirus vaccine: a modelling study.

Background: With efforts underway to develop a universal coronavirus vaccine, otherwise known as a pan-coronavirus vaccine, this is the time to offer potential funders, researchers, and manufacturers guidance on the potential value of such a vaccine and how this value may change with differing vaccine and vaccination characteristics. Methods: Using a computational model representing the United States (U.S.) population, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the various clinical and economic outcomes of COVID-19 such as hospitalisations, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, productivity losses, direct medical costs, and total societal costs, we explored the impact of a universal vaccine under different circumstances. We developed and populated this model using data reported by the CDC as well as observational studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: A pan-coronavirus vaccine would be cost saving in the U.S. as a standalone intervention as long as its vaccine efficacy is ≥10% and vaccination coverage is ≥10%. Every 1% increase in efficacy between 10% and 50% could avert an additional 395,000 infections and save $1.0 billion in total societal costs ($45.3 million in productivity losses, $1.1 billion in direct medical costs). It would remain cost saving even when a strain-specific coronavirus vaccine would be subsequently available, as long as it takes at least 2-3 months to develop, test, and bring that more specific vaccine to the market. Interpretation: Our results provide support for the development and stockpiling of a pan-coronavirus vaccine and help delineate the vaccine characteristics to aim for in development of such a vaccine. Funding: The National Science Foundation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the City University of New York.