Early social distancing policies in Europe, changes in mobility & COVID-19 case trajectories: Insights from Spring 2020.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing have been widely used to mitigate community spread of SARS-CoV-2. We sought to quantify the impact of COVID-19 social distancing policies across 27 European counties in spring 2020 on population mobility and the subsequent trajectory of disease. METHODS: We obtained data on national social distancing policies from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker and aggregated and anonymized mobility data from Google. We used a pre-post comparison and two linear mixed-effects models to first assess the relationship between implementation of national policies and observed changes in mobility, and then to assess the relationship between changes in mobility and rates of COVID-19 infections in subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Compared to a pre-COVID baseline, Spain saw the largest decrease in aggregate population mobility (~70%), as measured by the time spent away from residence, while Sweden saw the smallest decrease (~20%). The largest declines in mobility were associated with mandatory stay-at-home orders, followed by mandatory workplace closures, school closures, and non-mandatory workplace closures. While mandatory shelter-in-place orders were associated with 16.7% less mobility (95% CI: -23.7% to -9.7%), non-mandatory orders were only associated with an 8.4% decrease (95% CI: -14.9% to -1.8%). Large-gathering bans were associated with the smallest change in mobility compared with other policy types. Changes in mobility were in turn associated with changes in COVID-19 case growth. For example, a 10% decrease in time spent away from places of residence was associated with 11.8% (95% CI: 3.8%, 19.1%) fewer new COVID-19 cases. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive evaluation across Europe suggests that mandatory stay-at-home orders and workplace closures had the largest impacts on population mobility and subsequent COVID-19 cases at the onset of the pandemic. With a better understanding of policies' relative performance, countries can more effectively invest in, and target, early nonpharmacological interventions.

The Relationship Between Health Spending And Social Spending In High-Income Countries: How Does The US Compare?

There is broad consensus that the US spends too much on health care. One proposed driver of the high US spending is low investment in social services. We examined the relationship between health spending and social spending across high-income countries. We found that US social spending (at 16.1 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] in 2015) is slightly below the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (17.0 percent of GDP) and above that average when education spending is included (US: 19.7 percent of GDP; OECD: 17.7 percent of GDP). We found that countries that spent more on social services tended to spend more on health care. Adjusting for poverty and unemployment rates and the proportion of people older than age sixty-five did not meaningfully change these associations. In addition, when we examined changes over time, we found additional evidence for a positive relationship between social and health spending: Countries with the greatest increases in social spending also had larger increases in health care spending.

Health Care Spending in the United States and Other High-Income Countries.

IMPORTANCE: Health care spending in the United States is a major concern and is higher than in other high-income countries, but there is little evidence that efforts to reform US health care delivery have had a meaningful influence on controlling health care spending and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare potential drivers of spending, such as structural capacity and utilization, in the United States with those of 10 of the highest-income countries (United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Denmark) to gain insight into what the United States can learn from these nations. EVIDENCE: Analysis of data primarily from 2013-2016 from key international organizations including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), comparing underlying differences in structural features, types of health care and social spending, and performance between the United States and 10 high-income countries. When data were not available for a given country or more accurate country-level estimates were available from sources other than the OECD, country-specific data sources were used. FINDINGS: In 2016, the US spent 17.8% of its gross domestic product on health care, and spending in the other countries ranged from 9.6% (Australia) to 12.4% (Switzerland). The proportion of the population with health insurance was 90% in the US, lower than the other countries (range, 99%-100%), and the US had the highest proportion of private health insurance (55.3%). For some determinants of health such as smoking, the US ranked second lowest of the countries (11.4% of the US population ≥15 years smokes daily; mean of all 11 countries, 16.6%), but the US had the highest percentage of adults who were overweight or obese at 70.1% (range for other countries, 23.8%-63.4%; mean of all 11 countries, 55.6%). Life expectancy in the US was the lowest of the 11 countries at 78.8 years (range for other countries, 80.7-83.9 years; mean of all 11 countries, 81.7 years), and infant mortality was the highest (5.8 deaths per 1000 live births in the US; 3.6 per 1000 for all 11 countries). The US did not differ substantially from the other countries in physician workforce (2.6 physicians per 1000; 43% primary care physicians), or nursing workforce (11.1 nurses per 1000). The US had comparable numbers of hospital beds (2.8 per 1000) but higher utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (118 per 1000) and computed tomography (245 per 1000) vs other countries. The US had similar rates of utilization (US discharges per 100 000 were 192 for acute myocardial infarction, 365 for pneumonia, 230 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; procedures per 100 000 were 204 for hip replacement, 226 for knee replacement, and 79 for coronary artery bypass graft surgery). Administrative costs of care (activities relating to planning, regulating, and managing health systems and services) accounted for 8% in the US vs a range of 1% to 3% in the other countries. For pharmaceutical costs, spending per capita was $1443 in the US vs a range of $466 to $939 in other countries. Salaries of physicians and nurses were higher in the US; for example, generalist physicians salaries were $218 173 in the US compared with a range of $86 607 to $154 126 in the other countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The United States spent approximately twice as much as other high-income countries on medical care, yet utilization rates in the United States were largely similar to those in other nations. Prices of labor and goods, including pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs appeared to be the major drivers of the difference in overall cost between the United States and other high-income countries. As patients, physicians, policy makers, and legislators actively debate the future of the US health system, data such as these are needed to inform policy decisions.

A comparison of how four countries use health IT to support care for people with chronic conditions.

Countries around the globe are investing in health information and communications technologies (ICTs) as critical tools for improving care for chronically ill patients. We profiled four high-income nations with varied health ICT strategies--Australia, Canada, Denmark, and the United States--to describe their use of ICTs to improve chronic care. Our goal was to identify common challenges and opportunities for cross-national learning. We found four key themes. First, although all four countries have a national strategy for health ICT adoption, strategies are implemented and adapted to chronic care needs regionally, which creates the challenge of spreading successful efforts across regions. Second, each country struggles with how to ensure that clinical information follows patients seamlessly between care settings. Third, although each nation is pursuing telehealth solutions as a component of chronic care, the telehealth initiatives are usually stand-alone efforts that are not well integrated into other ICT solutions, such as electronic health records. Finally, countries have made progress in improving patients' access to their clinical data but have not fully succeeded in engaging patients to apply the data to improve care. These common themes suggest that although the four nations have different health care systems and ICT strategies, all of them face a similar set of challenges, creating an opportunity for cross-national learning.