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.

All-Cause Health Care and Work Loss Burden Associated With Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug and Opioid Treatment in Employed Patients With Osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs and work loss outcomes associated with pain management of employed patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. METHODS: Optum Health Care Solutions data were analyzed for employed patients prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, or nontramadol opioids following diagnoses of osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. A pre-post design was used to evaluate changes in all-cause HRU and costs, and work loss days and associated costs. RESULTS: Costs rose for patients in all three cohorts (up to 198.3% for health care costs [tramadol] and up to 178.7% for work loss costs [tramadol]). Greatest increases in all-cause HRU included inpatient visits (237.9% [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs]; 600% [tramadol]). CONCLUSIONS: Study results provide evidence of increases in all-cause HRU and costs and work loss days and associated costs.

A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of the Impact of Osteoarthritis on Disability Leave, Workers' Compensation Claims, and Healthcare Payments.

OBJECTIVES: Examine short-term disability (STD) and workers' compensation (WC) associated leave and wage replacements, and overall direct healthcare payments, among employees with osteoarthritis (OA) versus other chronically painful conditions; quantifying the impact of opioid use. METHODS: Analysis of employees with more than or equal to two STD or WC claims for OA or pre-specified chronically painful conditions (control) in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases (2014 to 2017). RESULTS: The OA cohort (n = 144,355) had an estimated +1.2 STD days, +$152 STD payments, and +$1410 healthcare payments relative to the control cohort (n = 392,639; P < 0.001). WC days/payments were similar. Differences were partially driven by an association between opioid use, increased STD days/payments, and healthcare payments observed in pooled cohorts (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OA is associated with high STD days/payments and healthcare payments. Opioid use significantly contributes to these and this should be considered when choosing treatment.

Reproducability of non-invasive bilirubin measurements.

PURPOSE: To determine the level of agreement between transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) measurements when sequentially measured by one and two users. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A method comparison study design was used to compare two sequential TcB measurements (JM103, Drager Medical Inc., Telford, PA) obtained by the same user and then by two different users. Users were blinded to each others' results. Differences (bias) and limits of agreement (±2 precision or SD) between sequential measurements with the TcB by a single user and two users were calculated and graphed using the Bland-Altman method. Acceptable levels for bias and precision were set a priori at bias ≤±1.5 mg/dL and/or precision ≤±3.0 mg/dL. RESULTS: A total of 34 newborn infants were studied, with total serum bilirubin (TSB) levels ranging from 2.7 to 8.1 mg/dL, averaging (±SD) 5.5 ± 1.8 mg/dL. Differences (bias) and the level of agreement (precision; SD) for two sequential noninvasive TcB measurements obtained by a single user and two different users (-0.2 ± 0.7 and -0.4 ± 0.7, respectively) were within the acceptable ranges. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We found good agreement between TcB measurements obtained sequentially by a single user and by two different users of the device, as well as between laboratory TSB values in low-risk newborn infants with normal bilirubin levels. These findings support the use of a noninvasive bilirubin meter to screen for hyperbilirubinemia, which could reduce the amount of blood obtained invasively from newborns.

The need for a systematic approach to statin switching: an analysis of real-world experience.

BACKGROUND: In the advent of generic statins becoming increasingly available and with the recent addition of atorvastatin to the generic market, healthcare providers are often encouraged by payers to switch from a branded statin to an alternate, less costly agent. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a therapeutic switch on cholesterol goal attainment among patients with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors for CVD. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multisite retrospective review of patient records evaluating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control before and after switching statins was conducted. METHODS: Participants were 18 to 89 years olds who were stable on statin therapy and had 1 or more risk factors for CVD. Patients meeting switch criteria (n = 833) were evaluated for changes in their statin therapy and LDL-C goal attainment. Drug/dose information, cholesterol values, and goal attainment in accordance with National Cholesterol Education Panel Third Adult Treatment Panel guidelines were determined before and after the switch. Dose potency was based on mean LDL-C reductions. RESULTS: Data were collected from 22 US sites. Risk factors for CVD were common, with 88.5% of patients identified as high risk. Overall, patients' mean LDL-C levels improved from 87.1 to 81.5 mg/dL, and goal attainment increased from 75.5% to 82.5% (P < .05). Switches to a comparable or higher statin/dose improved mean LDL-C and goal attainment (P < .05). However, in patients transitioned to a lower statin/dose equivalency (36.4%), mean LDL-C level increased from 79.8 to 85.6 mg/dL and goal attainment fell from 84.2% to 78.6% (P < .05). Logistic regression confirmed that LDL-C goal attainment was reduced by 53% in patients switched to a lower statin/dose (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.76; P = .002) compared with patients switched to an equipotent dose. The use of adjunctive lipid-lowering therapies increased in patients switched to a lower statin/dose (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Cholesterol values and goal attainment can be negatively impacted when a systematic approach is not used and patients are switched to lower potency therapies.