Equal waiting times for all? Empirical evidence for elective surgeries in the Austrian public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: This study analyses waiting times for elective surgeries and potential determinants, including supplementary private health insurance, visits in the operating physician's private practice and informal payments for faster treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective patient questionnaire survey. METHODS: The survey was conducted in eleven Austrian rehabilitation centres in 2019. Data was analysed based on bivariate tests (n = 400) and a multivariate negative-binomial regression model (n = 310) with institution- and patient-related characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: Median waiting times were 8.9 weeks (IQR: 4.5-18.0) for hip replacement and 8.4 weeks (IQR: 5.0-20.0) for knee replacement surgery. 10.9% of the patients reported having received an offer to shorten their waiting time through a visit in the operating physician's private practice before the surgery or through an informal payment directly to the operating physician. Surgery in private for-profit hospitals, supplementary private health insurance and severe pain were associated with shorter waiting times. CONCLUSIONS: While waiting times for elective surgeries in Austria are below international levels, shorter waits for patients with private health insurance and offers to reduce waiting times through informal payments point to equitable access concerns in a public healthcare system.

Trend Analysis of Industry-Sponsored Research Funding and Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery Using the Open Payments Database.

Introduction Orthopedic surgery and industry work together in order to provide optimal patient care. The Open Payments Database (OPD), established in 2013, reports industry payments to physicians. This study analyzes the first five years of industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) to orthopedic surgeons and examines research productivity's effect on ISRF. Methods The OPD was queried from 2014 to 2018 for research payments to orthopedic surgeons in the United States. H-indices and publication volume were queried using the Scopus database. The research payments were sub-categorized to surgeons in teaching hospitals, registered clinical trials, preclinical research, and domestic. Results Between 2014 and 2018, a total of $202.74 million in ISRF was made to 1718 orthopedic surgeons. The proportion of research payments associated with a registered clinical trial significantly increased from 9.62% of payments in 2014 to 42.19% of payments in 2018 (p=0.002). Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ($20.77 million) contributed the largest value of payments to the greatest number of orthopedic surgeons (n=337). The total value of research payments increased by $3855 for every five-unit increase of a surgeon's H-index (p<0.001) and $762 for every five additional publications (p<0.001). Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons affiliated with a teaching hospital or clinical trial receive more ISRF. There may be a relationship between research productivity and ISRF.

Should Patients Be Allowed to Pay Out of Pocket? The Ethical Dilemma of Access to Expensive Anti-cancer Treatments in Universal Healthcare Systems: A Dutch Case Study.

With the increasing prices of newly approved anti-cancer treatments contributing to rising healthcare costs, healthcare systems are facing complex economic and ethical dilemmas. Especially in countries with universal access and mandatory health insurance, including many European countries, the organizing of funding or reimbursement of expensive new treatments can be challenging. When expensive anti-cancer treatments are deemed safe and effective, but are not (yet) reimbursed, ethical dilemmas arise. In countries with universal healthcare systems, such as the Netherlands, this gives rise to a rather new ethical dilemma: should patients be allowed to pay out of pocket, using private funds, for medical treatments? On the one hand, to allow patients to pay for treatments out of pocket would be in line with the medical-ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy. On the other hand, allowing patients to pay out of pocket for anti-cancer treatments may lead to unequal access to medical treatments and could be considered unfair to patients who are less well-off. Thus, it could undermine the values of equality and solidarity, on which the Dutch healthcare system is built. Furthermore, out-of-pocket payments could potentially lead to financial hardship and distress for patients, which would conflict with the principle of non-maleficence. Does this mean that patients can rightfully be denied access to approved but not (yet) reimbursed anti-cancer treatments? In this article, we will use the Dutch healthcare system, which is based on equal access and solidarity, as a case study to draw attention to this-currently relatively unknown and unresolved-dilemma and to clarify the values at stake. This article contributes to current discussions about the societal problem of rising healthcare costs by informing policymakers, healthcare professionals, and ethicists about the ethical dilemma of out-of-pocket payments in universal healthcare systems, and aims to support health authorities, policymakers and health professionals in developing policy for whether to allow out-of-pocket payment-based access to newly approved but (too) expensive anti-cancer treatments.

Direct Economic Burden of Cubital Tunnel Surgery in the United States: Total Payments and Components of Cost.

PURPOSE: Despite its widespread prevalence, the cost of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) in the United States to patients and insurers is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to quantify the direct payments associated with operative treatment of CuTS. We hypothesized that CuTS represents a substantial cost to the payer in facility fees, surgeon fees and other expenses. METHODS: Utilizing the MarketScan database of insured patients (commercial and Medicaid), we identified a cohort of 41,777 patients aged 18-64 years with surgically treated CuTS from 2006 to 2018. We estimated the median 90-day payments from encounters associated with cubital tunnel release (CuTR) and/or ulnar nerve transposition surgery by summing all payments for claims within 90 days after the index surgery. Published estimates of the annual number of cubital tunnel surgeries were used to calculate the annual expenditure. RESULTS: Of 41,777 patients, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) values of total direct payments were $5,522 [$3,426, $9,541]. With an estimated 94,645 cases/year, this leads to an annual payment of more than $522 million. Index facility payments (median[IQR] $2,555 [$1,359, $4,708] were the highest, followed by index provider payments ($1,691 [$1,328, $2,217]). The median index surgeon payment (median[IQR] $905 [$707, $1,184]) represented just over half of the provider payments. Post-operative care had a median [IQR] payment of $377 ($424, $1,987). Limitations of claims databases prevented assessment of other indirect costs associated with cubital tunnel surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Payments for the surgical treatment of CuTS from the index surgery to 90 days post-operatively have an estimated median of $5,522 per patient, totaling $52 million annually. Index facility fees are responsible for more than 46% of payments, while index payments to surgeons represent approximately 16%. Defining this data is critical to understanding one component of the economic impact of CuTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Drug company methodologies used for reporting in the UK pharmaceutical industry payment transparency database between 2015 and 2019: A content analysis.

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of pounds on marketing/R&D-related payments annually to healthcare organisations and healthcare professionals. UK pharmaceutical industry self-regulatory bodies require member companies who sign up to their code of conduct to publish details of their payments. They are also required to publish the methodologies underlying these payments, namely methodological notes. This study aimed to analyse UK pharmaceutical companies' methodological notes and their adherence to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry code of conduct and other relevant guidance. We conducted a content analysis of methodological notes for the years 2015, 2017 and 2019 and assessed companies' adherence to self-regulatory bodies' requirements and recommendations for methodology disclosure. Overall, 90 companies made payment disclosures in all three years, publishing 269 methodological notes. We found gaps in adherence to self-regulatory requirements. Only 3 (3.3 %) companies provided clear information for all self-regulatory body recommendations and regulations in all of their notes. Companies also varied in their approaches to important areas. For example, of the 244 notes with clear information on VAT management, 36.1 % (N = 88) included VAT, 30.3 % (N = 74) excluded VAT, and 33.6 % (N = 82) had multiple rules for VAT. There was evidence of widespread non-adherence to self-regulatory requirements. This suggests flaws with self-regulation and a need for greater enforcement of rules or consideration of a publicly mandated disclosure system.

A Framework for the Design of Risk-Adjustment Models in Health Care Provider Payment Systems.

Prospective payments for health care providers require adequate risk adjustment (RA) to address systematic variation in patients' health care needs. However, the design of RA for provider payment involves many choices and difficult trade-offs between incentives for risk selection, incentives for cost control, and feasibility. Despite a growing literature, a comprehensive framework of these choices and trade-offs is lacking. This article aims to develop such a framework. Using literature review and expert consultation, we identify key design choices for RA in the context of provider payment and subsequently categorize these choices along two dimensions: (a) the choice of risk adjusters and (b) the choice of payment weights. For each design choice, we provide an overview of options, trade-offs, and key references. By making design choices and associated trade-offs explicit, our framework facilitates customizing RA design to provider payment systems, given the objectives and other characteristics of the context of interest.

Show Me the Money: Industry Payments to American Association of Endocrine Surgeons Members.

INTRODUCTION: The Open Payments Program (OPP) was created through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to disclose transactions between physicians and industry. Various surgical subspecialties have evaluated trends in OPP; however, this has not been looked at among endocrine surgeons. Our objective was to describe OPP trends among members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES). METHODS: A list of members from the AAES was compiled using membership information from the AAES annual meetings. These surgeons were queried in the OPP database from 2014 to 2020. Payments were classified as general payments and research payments. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2020, 417 surgeons in the AAES received a total of $5,870,113 in general payments with an annual range from $542,945 to $1,010,564. The median payment was $701 (interquartile range [IQR] $145-$4641) over all years. The top 10th percentile received >85% of the payments ($5,058,207) with the median payment in this decile being $37,535.06 (IQR $26,599-$112,380). The most common category for payments was food and beverage (63.5%) followed by travel and lodging (22.6%) and consulting fees (4.1%). Regarding research payments, 30 surgeons received $9,522,374 with a median payment of $45,635.68 (IQR $12,050-$158,863). CONCLUSIONS: Members of the AAES received a total of $15,392,487 in money from industry between 2014 and 2020 in general and research payments demonstrating that the industry relationship is substantial. The majority of these payments were given to only a small portion of surgeons. The transparency created by OPP is critical for endocrine surgeons to prevent public misconceptions and identify the potential for any conflicts of interest.

Did Payment Reform Lead to Patient Selection in Hip and Knee Arthroplasties? An Observational Study Using New York State Data.

Background: While the comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) bundled payment program for total joint replacement (TJR) emphasizes value, concerns persist regarding unintended consequences, primarily hospital selection of healthier, younger patients. Purpose: We sought to assess changes in patient characteristics and outcomes after CJR implementation in New York State. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included primary total hip and total knee arthroplasties from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Procedures performed before (July 2014 to March 2016; n = 58,610) and after (April 2016 to December 2017; n = 78,728) CJR implementation were compared. Primary outcomes were patient characteristics: Deyo-Comorbidity Index and age. Secondary outcomes were increased hospitalization cost, discharge to institutional post-acute care, and prolonged length of stay. A difference-in-differences analysis estimated changes after CJR implementation, comparing CJR to non-CJR hospitals. Results: We found that CJR implementation (in 49 of 144 New York State hospitals) coincided with slightly older and more comorbid TJR recipients. The CJR program coincided with significantly reduced hospitalization cost and discharge to institutional post-acute care but not length of stay. Some CJR effects appear to have affected non-Medicare patients, as well. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests that in New York State, the CJR bundled payment program did not result in hospitals selecting younger and healthier TJR recipients and coincided with decreased costs and fewer discharges to institutional postacute care.

Assessment of conflicts of interest in literature on monoclonal antibodies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis using the Open Payments Database.

BACKGROUND: Accurate conflict of interest (COI) information is essential for promoting transparency and trust in research. We aim to assess COI disclosure patterns in monoclonal antibodies (MABs) research for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) using the Open Payments Database (OPD). METHODS: Studies on FDA-approved MABs for CRSwNP (dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab) published between 2019 and 2021 with at least one US author were identified through PubMed. Industry-reported payments from the manufacturers (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline) between 2018 and 2021 in OPD's General Payments category were collected. Authors were cross-checked against OPD metadata using a previously published ChatGPT-based algorithm. Additionally, this novel algorithm analyzed COI statements for relevant author‒company specific disclosures, identifying disclosed and undisclosed payments made 3‒15 months prior to publication. RESULTS: A total of 214 unique authors from 76 studies were included. Of 30 articles that received at least one relevant payment, 21 (70%) were found to have an undisclosed COI, with a mean total undisclosed payment of $4890 and a median of $10,331. Fifty-six authors had relevant OPD payments and 40 (71.4%) authors did not declare a potential COI. Interestingly, 158 authors had no relevant payments and 62 (39.2%) declared a potential COI. Author order was not significantly associated with potential under- or over-disclosure. CONCLUSION: This study characterizes COI disclosure patterns in rhinosinusitis-relevant MABs research using a novel automated approach. Given the discrepancy between disclosures and industry-reported payments, our findings suggest a need for improved disclosure education and practices.

Proportion of industry payment value by category in radiology relative to other specialties.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to physicians are common, but it is unknown how the payments in different categories to radiologists compare to other specialties. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of industry payments to physicians in radiology in certain categories relative to other specialties. METHODS: The Open Payments Database was analyzed from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 for industry payments to all allopathic & osteopathic physicians, and classified into distinct clinical specialties. Payments to physicians in three categories were calculated in relation to total payments in each specialty during the study period: consulting fees, research, and royalties/ownership (royalty, license, or current or prospective ownership or investment). RESULTS: The total value of industry payments to physicians across all specialties was just under $13 billion over the six-year period from 2017 to 2022. During this period, 51.4 million total payments were made to 791,746 physicians. US physicians in radiology received 452,027 payments for a total value of $357 million (2.8 % of total value). For radiologists, 32.8 % of industry payment value was attributed to royalties/ownership and 9.9 % to research, collectively adding up to 42.7 % of all industry payment. The only specialties with higher payments in these two categories considered reflective of innovation payments were the surgical specialties with higher royalty payments. CONCLUSION: The proportion of industry payments in radiology in categories reflecting innovation (royalty/ownership and research fees) is high and second only to surgical specialties.

Do cash or digital payment modalities affect community health worker performance? - a case study of a remote refugee settlement in Western Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence about the influence of digital and cash payment modalities on the performance of Community Health Workers (CHWs) in underserved communities, such as refugee settlements. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of CHWs when paid in cash or digitally in Kyaka II refugee settlement, Uganda. METHODS: A comparative cross-sectional mixed methods design was used. Secondary data comprising 247 CHW reports during a six-month period of cash and digital payments were analyzed using Stata v14. Eleven focus group discussions, four in-depth interviews, and ten key informant interviews were conducted among the settlement stakeholders to explore perceptions of the payment methods. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using Atlas.ti v9. RESULTS: CHWs performed better when paid cash than digital payments (t = 5.28; df = 246; p < 0.001). During the cash payment period, at least secondary education (APR 1.71 CI: 1.14-2.58) and having a side occupation (APR 1.58; CI: 1.13-2.21) were positively associated with performance. For digital payments, being male (APR 0.58; CI: 0.34-0.98), serving longer than 9 years (APR 0.87; CI: 0.82-0.93), and being allocated more than 60 households per month (APR 0.31; CI: 0.19-0.52) were negatively associated with CHW performance. Qualitative data revealed that most stakeholders preferred cash due to inconsistent and delayed digital payments. CONCLUSION: CHWs preferred and performed better with cash payments because digital payments were associated with delays and payment shortfalls that demotivated them. Implementers should invest towards averting digital payment shortfalls in remote settings to enhance CHW motivation and performance.

Main findings: Regarding the influence of payment modalities on Community Health Workers' performance, this study found that community health workers were motivated to perform better when paid with cash compared to digital payments.Added knowledge: Cash payments offer better reliability than digital payments in refugee settlements, which underscores the need to understand further the barriers to digital payments, particularly in hard-to-reach areas.Global health impact for policy and action: Health systems adapting to digital payments should consider a gradual transition through a hybrid approach that includes cash and digital payments while addressing the challenges associated with digital payments, especially in refugee settings and similar resource-constrained contexts.

Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals. METHODS: Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures. RESULTS: Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors). CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.

Association between mandatory bundled payments and changes in socioeconomic disparities for joint replacement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mandatory participation by hospitals in bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) was associated with changes in outcome disparities for patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used Medicare claims data for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR in the United States between 2011 and 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a differences-in-differences method to compare changes in outcome disparities between dual-eligible and non-dual eligible beneficiaries after hospital participation in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program. The primary outcome was LEJR complications. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospitals in the US market areas eligible for CJR. We included beneficiaries in the intervention group who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets randomized to participate in CJR. The comparison group included patients who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets who were eligible for CJR but randomized to control. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study included 1,603,555 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.6 years, 64.3% women, 11.0% dual-eligible). Among participant hospitals, complications decreased between baseline and intervention periods from 11.0% to 10.1% for dual-eligible and 7.0% to 6.4% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. Among nonparticipant hospitals, complications decreased from 10.3% to 9.8% for dual-eligible and 6.7% to 6.0% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In adjusted analysis, CJR participation was associated with a reduced difference in complications between dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (-0.9 percentage points, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.1). The reduction in disparities was observed among hospitals without prior experience in a voluntary LEJR bundled payment model. There were no differential changes in 90-day readmissions or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory participation in a bundled payment program was associated with reduced disparities in joint replacement complications for Medicare beneficiaries with low income. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of reduced socioeconomic disparities in outcomes under value-based payments.

Who participates in value-based care models? Physician characteristics and implications for value-based care.

Value-based care (VBC) payment models are becoming increasingly prevalent as alternatives to the traditional fee-for-service paradigm. This research quantifies the relationship between physician characteristics and participation in VBC payment models using the Association of American Medical Colleges' 2022 National Sample Survey of Physicians. We specified logistic regressions using physician-level variables to assess associations with current and new participation in Accountable Care Organizations, Primary Care First model, capitation, and bundled payments. Our results indicate that most respondents engaged in at least 1 VBC. Participation varied based on several characteristics, and physician specialty was highly predictive of overall participation. Compared with primary care physicians (PCPs), hospital-based physicians (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, P < .001), medical specialists (OR = 0.5, P < .001), psychiatrists (OR = 0.4, P < .001), and surgeons (OR = 0.5, P < .001) were less likely to participate in VBC models. Medical specialists and surgeons were less likely to participate in commercial capitation than PCPs, while medical specialists and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to participate in certain bundles than PCPs. We suggest several policies to close the cross-specialty participation gap by including specialists and appealing to providers and patients.

Assessing the equity and coverage policy sensitivity of financial protection indicators in Europe.

Progress towards universal health coverage is monitored by the incidence of catastrophic spending. Two catastrophic spending indicators are commonly used in Europe: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.8.2 and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) indicator. The use of different indicators can cause confusion, especially if they produce contradictory results and policy implications. We use harmonised household budget survey data from 27 European Union countries covering 505,217 households and estimate the risk of catastrophic spending, conditional on household characteristics and the design of medicines co-payments. We calculate the predicted probability of catastrophic spending for particular households, which we call LISAs, under combinations of medicines co-payment policies and compare predictions across the two indicators. Using the WHO/Europe indicator, any combination of two or more protective policies (i.e. low fixed co-payments instead of percentage co-payments, exemptions for low-income households and income-related caps on co-payments) is associated with a statistically significant lower risk of catastrophic spending. Using the SDG indicator, confidence intervals for every combination of protective policies overlap with those for no protective policies. Although out-of-pocket medicines spending is a strong predictor of catastrophic spending using both indicators, the WHO/Europe indicator is more sensitive to medicines co-payment policies than the SDG indicator, making it a better indicator to monitor health system equity and progress towards UHC in Europe.

Interlinking FinTech and eHealth: a qualitative study.

Introduction: This study investigates the integration of financial technology (FinTech) and electronic health (eHealth) to explore the opportunities, challenges, and implications arising from their interlinkage in Saudi Arabia. Methods: Utilizing qualitative semi-structured interviews with 26 participants-including physicians, patients, technical and administrative managers, and FinTech consultants-the research adopts an inductive approach to understand diverse perspectives. Results: Key findings reveal significant benefits such as improved efficiency in administrative processes, enhanced access to healthcare services, increased financial inclusion, better decision-making, improved patient experience, and the promotion of innovation and sustainability. However, barriers including regulatory challenges, data privacy and security concerns, interoperability issues, the digital divide, resistance to change, and cost implications were also identified. Conclusion: Overall, the integration of FinTech and eHealth holds substantial promise for advancing healthcare delivery in Saudi Arabia. Future implications include the expansion of telehealth services, an increase in startups, the integration of wearable health devices, blockchain-based systems, evolving regulatory frameworks, and heightened collaborations. Addressing the identified challenges is crucial for realizing the full potential of this integration.

Social Determinants of Health, Tribal Payments, and Probability of Contracting COVID-19 in American Indian and Alaska Native Peoples.

Little is known about the relationships between demographic and economic social determinants of health and the probability of contracting COVID-19 in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In addition, we do not know if and how tribal payments, unique to AI/AN peoples, are associated with the probability of contracting COVID-19. We surveyed 767 AI/AN patients of five geographically disparate health organizations that primarily served AI/AN peoples in urban settings between January and May of 2021. We used univariate modified Poisson regressions to estimate the influence of age, gender, household composition, education, household income, and tribal payments on risk of contracting COVID-19, with results presented as both risk and risk difference. Fifteen percent of the sample contracted COVID-19, and individuals who lived in households with two or more generations had an 11-percentage point elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to those who lived alone. Twenty-seven percent of participants received tribal payments; receipt was associated with seven percentage points (change from 18% probability to 11% probability) lower risk of contracting COVID-19. Our findings showed interventions specifically designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in multigenerational households, and regular tribal payments may help improve health outcomes in urban AI/AN populations.

A longitudinal study on impact of emergency cash transfer payments during the COVID pandemic on coping among Australian young adults.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused financial hardship and psychological distress among young Australians. This study investigates whether the Australian Government's emergency cash transfer payments-specifically welfare expansion for those unemployed prior to the pandemic (known in Australia as the Coronavirus Supplement) and JobKeeper (cash support for those with reduced or stopped employment due to the pandemic)-were associated with individual's level of coping during the coronavirus pandemic among those with and without mental disorders (including anxiety, depression, ADHD and autism). The sample included 902 young adults who participated in all of the last three waves (8, 9C1, 9C2) of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), a nationally representative cohort study. Modified Poisson regression models were used to assess the impact of emergency cash transfer payments on 18-22-year-old's self-rated coping level, stratifying the analysis by those with and without mental disorders. All models were adjusted for gender, employment, location, family cohesion, history of smoking, alcohol intake, and COVID-19 test result. Of the 902-person sample analysed, 41.5% (n = 374) reported high levels of coping, 18.9% (n = 171) reported mental disorders, 40.3% (n = 364) received the Coronavirus Supplement and 16.4% (n = 148) received JobKeeper payments. Analysing the total sample demonstrated that participants who received the JobKeeper payment were more likely to have a higher level of coping compared to those who did not receive the JobKeeper payment. Stratified analyses demonstrated that those with pre-existing mental disorder obtained significant benefit from the JobKeeper payment on their level of coping, compared to those who did not receive JobKeeper. In contrast, receipt of the Coronavirus Supplement was not significantly associated with higher level of coping. Among those with no mental health disorder, neither the Coronavirus Supplement nor JobKeeper had a statistically significant impact on level of coping. These findings suggest the positive impacts of cash transfers on level of coping during the pandemic were limited to those with a pre-existing mental disorder who received JobKeeper.

Industry relationships with interventional radiologists: Who are the high payment physicians?

PURPOSE: To identify characteristics of interventional radiologists receiving more than $100,000 in general industry payments over a 5-year period (2017-2021). METHODS: The Open Payments database was queried to identify interventional radiologists who received more than $100,000 in consulting fees, speaker fees, education, and/or gifts over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The national provider identifier registry, Scopus, and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, such as demographics, research profile, leadership positions, and social media presence. RESULTS: From 2017-2021, 125 interventional radiologists received cumulative payments greater than $100,000 in consulting fees, speaker fees, education, and gifts. For this subset of physicians, the median (IQR) cumulative payment value was $214,380 ($141,812 - $383,740), and the total payment value was $40 million. While the highest-paid subset of physicians represented only 3 % (125/4272) of all US interventional radiologists paid by industry, the total payment value represented 66 % ($40,039,610.08/$60,859,025) of the total payment value among all interventional radiologists. 47 % (59/125) had faculty appointments and 30 % (37/125) had hospital leadership positions. 22 % (27/125) were clinical practice guideline authors, while 18 % (23/125) served on journal editorial boards and 12 % (15/125) had positions in specialty association leadership. Castle Connolly recognized 26 % (32/125) as top doctors. Among the 96 % (120/125) with published research in the past 5 years, the median (IQR) H-index was 17 (7-31). 38 % (48/125) had a presence on Twitter with a median (IQR) Kardashian index of 2.03 (0.48-6.16). CONCLUSION: A small subset of interventional radiologists receive large payments from drug and medical device companies. These physicians are leaders in their field with influence in hospitals, research, associations, and social media. Further work is needed to understand how the concentration of these payments affects decisions in clinical practice and policy.

Informal Employment and High Burden of Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Payments among Older Workers: Evidence from Longitudinal Ageing Study in India.

India's economy is among the fastest growing in the world. However, a large share of informal workforce is a common characteristic of country's economy, comprises a significant portion of most of its labour markets. This workforce often receives low wages and lacks benefits such as strong social security and health coverage for all. The majority of healthcare spending in India is private. As India's population ages and the informal sector expands, it is expected that many of these workers will continue to work beyond the retirement age to bear their own healthcare costs due to lack of savings, pensions and the precarious nature of their employment. In this context, this study estimates the burden of Out-of-Pocket (OOP) payments on India's informal older workers compared to their formal counterparts, using data from the first wave of the nationally representative Longitudinal Ageing Study in India. According to estimates from the Two-part regression model, informal older workers pay, on an average, INR 1113 (p<0.01) and INR 55 (p<0.05) less than their formal counterparts for inpatient and outpatient care, respectively. However, probit regression models revealed that the burden of combined (both inpatient and outpatient) OOP payments exceeding (by 40%, 20%, and 10%) of their income is significantly higher among informal older workers compared to formal older workers. The study underscores the need for strengthening of universal health insurance schemes to ensure everyone has access to medical services without experiencing financial hardship. It also advocates for policies specifically tailored towards informal workers, considering their unique challenges with regard to livelihoods and healthcare security. In particular, this encompasses bolstering the existing social security and healthcare system, and related policies for ensuring financial security against OOP payments, especially for informal workers and all the population in general.