ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on health systems worldwide, and Romania was no exception. The impact on healthcare expenses for pregnant women was considerable, especially in COVID-19-only tertiary centers. This study aimed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare costs in a designated COVID-19 maternity ward. We conducted an observational study comparing pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 (study group) to those without the infection (control group). Patients were recruited at Bucur Maternity Hospital from March 2020 to March 2022. We evaluated expenses for the entire period of hospitalization, treatment, medical supplies, and medical investigations. The study included 600 pregnant women, divided equally into two groups of 300 each. Significant cost differences were observed between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups: medication costs (664.56 EUR vs. 39.49 EUR), administrative costs (191.79 EUR vs. 30.28 EUR), and medical investigation costs (191.15 EUR vs. 29.42 EUR). The costs for a severe case of COVID-19 were about two times higher than a mild case and 70 times higher than a non-COVID-19 case (P <0.001). We identified a significant cost increase due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in our unit. The expenses were augmented by the time of hospitalization, medication, and medical investigations. COVID-19 had a significant impact on healthcare costs, mostly among pregnant women with severe disease. The strategy of operating exclusively as a COVID-19 unit proved to be inefficient and highly costly to our hospital.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Care Costs , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers , Humans , Female , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Adult , Romania/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/economics , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Tertiary Care Centers/economics , Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, Maternity/economics , Cost of Illness , Hospitalization/economics , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study examined manual therapy business owners' perception of official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on their clinics' economic performance, including clinic activity hours and business turnover. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a longitudinal study design, data were collected in November 2021 (baseline), and after three months, six months, and 12 months. Participants were manual therapists who were business owners. A growth curve model was used to analyze differences in clinical activity trajectories. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between perceived disruptions in business and turnover. Qualitative text analysis was used to examine participants' responses to open-ended questions concerning economic measures taken to sustain their business during the pandemic. RESULTS: This study of 443 manual therapy business owners found that clinics were initially active with minimal variation, but activity changed following COVID-19 recommendations. Business owners perceived that the disruptions had no significant impact on turnover during the initial stages of the official recommendations. Economic support and the previous decrease in turnover increased the likelihood of experiencing a decreased turnover at 12 months. Business owners implemented cost-cutting measures and diversified income sources to navigate COVID-19 challenges and sustain their businesses. CONCLUSION: The official recommendations in Sweden had an impact on manual therapists' businesses as the COVID-19 pandemic lingered. Some business owners were concerned at the early stages about lower turnover but showed financial resilience by cutting costs and finding new revenue sources to overcome COVID-19 challenges.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Humans , Sweden/epidemiology , Female , Male , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics/economics , Adult , SARS-CoV-2 , Middle Aged , Commerce , Cohort StudiesABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant changes in daily life for humanity and has had a profound impact on mental health. As widely acknowledged, the pandemic has led to notable increases in rates of anxiety, depression, distress, and other mental health-related issues, affecting both infected patients and non-infected individuals. COVID-19 patients and survivors face heightened risks for various neurological and psychiatric disorders and complications. Vulnerable populations, including those with pre-existing mental health conditions and individuals living in poverty or frailty, may encounter additional challenges. Tragically, suicide rates have also risen, particularly among young people, due to factors such as unemployment, financial crises, domestic violence, substance abuse, and social isolation. Efforts are underway to address these mental health issues, with healthcare professionals urged to regularly screen both COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients and survivors for psychological distress, ensuring rapid and appropriate interventions. Ongoing periodic follow-up and multidimensional, interdisciplinary approaches are essential for individuals experiencing long-term psychiatric sequelae. Preventive strategies must be developed to mitigate mental health problems during both the acute and recovery phases of COVID-19 infection. Vaccination efforts continue to prioritize vulnerable populations, including those with mental health conditions, to prevent future complications. Given the profound implications of mental health problems, including shorter life expectancy, diminished quality of life, heightened distress among caregivers, and substantial economic burden, it is imperative that political and health authorities prioritize the mental well-being of all individuals affected by COVID-19, including infected individuals, non-infected individuals, survivors, and caregivers.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , Pandemics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Mental Health/economics , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Survivors/psychology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/economics , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/epidemiology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/psychology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Caregivers/psychology , Life Expectancy , Quality of Life , Health Policy/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research suggests an association between COVID-19 infection and certain financial hardships in the shorter term and among single-state and privately insured samples. Whether COVID-19 is associated with financial hardship in the longer-term or among socially vulnerable populations is unknown. Therefore, we examined whether COVID-19 was associated with a range of financial hardships 18 months after initial infection among a national cohort of Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-the largest national integrated health system in the US. We additionally explored the association between Veteran characteristics and financial hardship during the pandemic, irrespective of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, telephone-based survey. Out of 600 Veterans with COVID-19 from October 2020 through April 2021 who were invited to participate, 194 Veterans with COVID-19 and 194 matched comparators without a history of infection participated. Financial hardship outcomes included overall health-related financial strain, two behavioral financial hardships (e.g., taking less medication than prescribed due to cost), and seven material financial hardships (e.g., using up most or all savings). Weighted generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of financial hardship by COVID-19 status, and to assess the relationship between infection and Veteran age, VHA copay status, and comorbidity score, irrespective of COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Among 388 respondents, 67% reported at least one type of financial hardship since March 2020, with 21% reporting behavioral hardships and 64% material hardships; 8% reported severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain. Compared with uninfected matched comparators, Veterans with a history of COVID-19 had greater risks of severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain (RR: 4.0, CI: 1.4-11.2), taking less medication due to cost (RR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.0-8.6), and having a loved one take time off work to care for them (RR: 1.9, CI: 1.1-3.6). Irrespective of COVID-19 status, Veterans aged < 65 years had a greater risk of most financial hardships compared with Veterans aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related financial hardships such as taking less medication due to cost and severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain were more common among Veterans with a history of COVID-19 than among matched comparators. Strategies are needed to address health-related financial hardship after COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05394025, registered 05-27-2022.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Financial Stress , Veterans , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , United States/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Male , Female , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Financial Stress/epidemiology , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Pandemics/economics , United States Department of Veterans AffairsABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant challenges on global health, emphasizing the persistent threat of large-scale infectious diseases in the future. This study addresses the need to enhance pooled testing efficiency for large populations. The common approach in pooled testing involves consolidating multiple test samples into a single tube to efficiently detect positivity at a lower cost. However, what is the optimal number of samples to be grouped together in order to minimize costs? i.e. allocating ten individuals per group may not be the most cost-effective strategy. In response, this paper introduces the hierarchical quotient space, an extension of fuzzy equivalence relations, as a method to optimize group allocations. In this study, we propose a cost-sensitive multi-granularity intelligent decision model to further minimize testing costs. This model considers both testing and collection costs, aiming to achieve the lowest total cost through optimal grouping at a single layer. Building upon this foundation, two multi-granularity models are proposed, exploring hierarchical group optimization. The experimental simulations were conducted using MATLAB R2022a on a desktop with Intel i5-10500 CPU and 8G RAM, considering scenarios with a fixed number of individuals and fixed positive probability. The main findings from our simulations demonstrate that the proposed models significantly enhance the efficiency and reduce the overall costs associated with pooled testing. For example, testing costs were reduced by nearly half when the optimal grouping strategy was applied, compared to the traditional method of grouping ten individuals. Additionally, the multi-granularity approach further optimized the hierarchical groupings, leading to substantial cost savings and improved testing efficiency.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/economics , Pandemics/economics , Decision Support TechniquesABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to consider reforms to their economic policies, in part to better deal with global warming, mass population migration and displacements, and worsening global inequalities. Some health progressive changes have been made, but the world still confronts the contradiction between economic growth and the need to reduce aggregate global consumption. Well-being economies based on valuing human and planetary health have been proposed as a viable option, with more appeal than concepts such as degrowth or postgrowth economics. Some governments are moving in a "well-being economy" direction, but are they moving far and fast enough? What are the policy actions governments must take, and how will they overcome powerful interests opposed to any economic changes that might challenge their privileges? The idea of well-being economies resonates strongly with most cultures; and therein lies its civil society activist potential.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Economic Development , Global Health/economics , Pandemics/economics , Health PolicyABSTRACT
US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , United States , Physicians/economics , Pandemics/economics , Medicine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Specialization/economicsABSTRACT
In March 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 precipitated one of the most significant stock market downturns in recent history. This paper explores the relationship between public sentiment related to COVID-19 and stock market fluctuations during the different phases of the pandemic. Utilizing natural language processing and sentiment analysis, we examine Twitter data for pandemic-related keywords to assess whether these sentiments can predict changes in stock market trends. Our analysis extends to additional datasets: one annotated by market experts to integrate professional financial sentiment with market dynamics, and another comprising long-term social media sentiment data to observe changes in public sentiment from the pandemic phase to the endemic phase. Our findings indicate a strong correlation between the sentiments expressed on social media and market volatility, particularly sentiments directly associated with stocks. These insights validate the effectiveness of our Sentiment(S)-LSTM model, which helps to understand the evolving dynamics between public sentiment and stock market trends from 2020 through 2023, as the situation shifts from pandemic to endemic and approaches new normalcy.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Social Media , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Humans , Pandemics/economics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Investments/economics , Natural Language Processing , Data MiningABSTRACT
Introduction: Our study explores how New York City (NYC) communities of various socioeconomic strata were uniquely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: New York City ZIP codes were stratified into three bins by median income: high-income, middle-income, and low-income. Case, hospitalization, and death rates obtained from NYCHealth were compared for the period between March 2020 and April 2022. Results: COVID-19 transmission rates among high-income populations during off-peak waves were higher than transmission rates among low-income populations. Hospitalization rates among low-income populations were higher during off-peak waves despite a lower transmission rate. Death rates during both off-peak and peak waves were higher for low-income ZIP codes. Discussion: This study presents evidence that while high-income areas had higher transmission rates during off-peak periods, low-income areas suffered greater adverse outcomes in terms of hospitalization and death rates. The importance of this study is that it focuses on the social inequalities that were amplified by the pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Income , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Income/statistics & numerical data , Socioeconomic Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Poverty/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
This study explores the effects of banking uncertainty on firms' debt financing. Employing data from 2007 to 2022 of Vietnam-a bank-based economy, we document that banking uncertainty negatively impacts corporate debt. The impact firmly holds across various debt maturities and sources, with the most predominant driver witnessed in bank debt. We also investigate the potential underlying mechanism linking banking uncertainty to debt financing, thereby validating the working of three crucial channels, including increased costs of debt, substitution of trade credit, and contractions in firm investment. Furthermore, conducting extended analysis, we find that debt financing exhibits more pronounced reactions to banking uncertainty for firms with closer ties to banks or during macroeconomic shocks, as captured by the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings survive after robustness checks by alternative measurement, static and dynamic econometric models, and endogeneity controls.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vietnam , Uncertainty , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Investments/economics , Commerce/economics , Banking, Personal/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Financial Management , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
During the COVID-19 pandemic, tele-mental health (TMH) was a viable approach for providing accessible mental and behavioral health (MBH) services. This study examines the sociodemographic disparities in TMH utilization and its effects on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and medical expenditures in Mississippi. Utilizing a cohort of 6787 insured adult patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and its affiliated sites between January 2020 and June 2023, including 3065 who accessed TMH services, we observed sociodemographic disparities between TMH and non-TMH cohorts. The TMH cohort was more likely to be younger, female, White/Caucasian, using payment methods other than Medicare, Medicaid, or commercial insurers, residing in rural areas, and with higher household income compared to the non-TMH cohort. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, TMH utilization was associated with a 190% increase in MBH-related outpatient visits, a 17% increase in MBH-related medical expenditures, and a 12% decrease in all-cause medical expenditures (all p < 0.001). Among rural residents, TMH utilization was associated with a 205% increase in MBH-related outpatient visits and a 19% decrease in all-cause medical expenditures (both p < 0.001). This study underscores the importance of addressing sociodemographic disparities in TMH services to promote equitable healthcare access while reducing overall medical expenditures.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Expenditures , Health Services Accessibility , Telemedicine , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Mississippi/epidemiology , Female , Male , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Middle Aged , Adult , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/economics , Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health Services/economics , Healthcare Disparities/economics , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Pandemics/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study addresses the economic challenges posed by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with a specific focus on Nepal. Employing a Systems Thinking approach, the study develops a comprehensive model that integrates macroeconomic interventions, exploring the trade-offs and synergies among various economic sectors. The interconnectedness of health, economic, and policy domains highlights the need for a holistic understanding of the pandemic's effects. METHODS: An exploratory research design was used. The model introduces three primary subsystems-import, local demand, and local production-illustrating their interdependence. The causal loop diagram depicts the implications of fiscal and monetary policies on the economy, emphasizing the synergy and trade-offs resulting from policy interventions. RESULTS: Findings reveal the significant economic impact of the pandemic on Nepal, leading to its negative growth rate in FY 2020/21, the first time Nepal has experienced this in the last two decades. The results show that both intended and unintended consequences are observed following the adoption of fiscal and monetary policy that aimed at minimizing the spread of virus suggesting a complex nature of relationship among the policy variables. The fiscal policy induced negative consequences on the increasing loan, slow revenue growth, while positive feedbacks are observed on increased investment opportunities, and boosting of local economy. The monetary measures yielded unintended consequences on the rising land prices, surge in share market. CONCLUSIONS: The study concludes by emphasizing the crucial role of informed policymaking in navigating the complex landscape, offering insights for creating a resilient and sustainable post-pandemic future.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , Nepal/epidemiology , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Systems Analysis , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
This study delves into the global evolution of 43 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicators, spanning 7 major health themes across 185 countries to evaluate the potential progress loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Both the cross-country and temporal variability of the dataset are employed to estimate an empirical model based on an extended version of the Preston curve, which links well-being to income levels and other key socioeconomic health determinants. The approach reveals significant global evolution trends operating in each SDG indicator assessed. We extrapolate the model yearly between 2020 and 2030 using the IMF's pre-COVID-19 economic growth projections to show how each country in the dataset are expected to evolve in these health topics throughout the decade, assuming no other external shocks. The results of this baseline scenario are contrasted with a post-COVID-19 scenario, where most of the pandemic costs were already known. The study reveals that economic growth losses are, on average, estimated as 42% and 28% for low- and lower middle-income countries, and of 15% and 7% in high- and upper middle-income countries, respectively, according to the IMF's projections. These disproportional figures are shown to exacerbate global health inequalities revealed by the curves. The expected progress loss in infectious diseases in low-income countries, for instance, is an average of 34%, against a mean of 6% in high-income countries. The theme of Infectious diseases is followed by injuries and violence; maternal and reproductive health; health systems coverage; and neonatal and infant health as those with worse performance. Low-income countries can expect an average progress loss of 16% across all health indicators assessed, whereas in high-income countries the estimated loss is as low as 3%. The disparity across countries is even more pronounced, with cases where the estimated progress loss is as high as nine times worse than the average loss of 8%. Conversely, countries with greater fiscal capacity are likely to fare much better under the circumstances, despite their worse death count, in many cases. Overall, these findings support the critical importance of integrating the fight against inequalities into the global development agendas.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Global Health , Sustainable Development , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Sustainable Development/trends , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Pandemics/economics , Socioeconomic Factors , Health Status DisparitiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Covid-19 has reinforced health and economic cases for investing in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) propose that low- and middle-income governments and donor countries should invest $31.1 billion each year for PPR. We analyse, based on the projected economic growth of countries between 2022 and 2027, how likely it is that low- and middle-income country governments and donors can mobilize the estimated funding. METHODS: We modelled trends in economic growth to project domestic health spending by low- and middle-income governments and official development assistance (ODA) by donors for years 2022 to 2027. We modelled two scenarios for countries and donors - a constant and an optimistic scenario. Under the constant scenario we assume that countries and donors continue to dedicate the same proportion of their health spending and ODA as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national income (GNI), respectively, as they did during baseline (the latest year for which data are available). In the optimistic scenario, we assume a yearly increase of 2.5% in health spending as a share of GDP for countries and ODA as a share of GNI for donors. FINDINGS: Our analysis shows that low-income countries would need to invest on average 37%, lower-middle income countries 9%, and upper-middle income countries 1%, of their total health spending on PPR each year under the constant scenario to meet the World Bank WHO targets. Donors would need to allocate on average 8% of their total ODA across all sectors to PPR each year to meet their target. CONCLUSIONS: The World Bank WHO targets for PPR will not be met unless low- and middle-income governments and donors spend a much higher share of their funding on PPR. Even under optimistic growth scenarios, low-income and lower-middle income countries will require increased support from global health donors. The donor target cannot be met using the yearly increase in ODA under any scenario. If the country and donor targets are not met, the highest-impact health security measures need to be prioritized for funding. Alternative sources of PPR financing could include global taxation (e.g., on financial transactions, carbon, or airline flights), cancelling debt, and addressing illicit financial flows. There is also a need for continued work on estimating current PPR costs and funding requirements in order to arrive at more enduring and reliable estimates.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Developing Countries , Economic Development , Models, Economic , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/economics , Global Health , Gross Domestic Product , Health Expenditures/trends , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Pandemic PreparednessABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic had a strong territorial dimension, with a highly asymmetric impact among Romanian counties, depending on pre-existing vulnerabilities, regions' economic structure, exposure to global value chains, specialization, and overall ability to shift a large share of employees to remote working. The aim of this paper is to assess the role of Romanian local authorities during this unprecedented global medical emergency by capturing the changes of public spending at the local level between 2010 and 2021 and amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify clusters of Romanian counties that shared similar characteristics in this period, using a panel data quantitative model and hierarchical cluster analysis. Our empirical analysis shows that between 2010-2021, the impact of social assistance expenditures was higher than public investment (capital spending and EU funds) on the GDP per capita at county level. Additionally, based on various macroeconomic and structural indicators (health, labour market performance, economic development, entrepreneurship, and both local public revenues and several types of expenditures), we determined seven clusters of counties. The research contributes to the discussion regarding the increase of economic resilience but also to the evidence-based public policies implementation at local level.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Romania/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economics , Public Policy , Cluster Analysis , Local GovernmentABSTRACT
The study aims to uncover the impact of COVID-19 and capital structure on the financial performance of 1787 renewable and nonrenewable energy firms in China from 2010 to 2022. Using the fixed effect approach, our study found that financial leverage negatively affected the return on assets and equity ratios for both renewable and nonrenewable energy. On the other hand, the study shows that COVID-19 adversely affected the financial performances of non-renewable energy firms. Conversely, COVID-19 positively affected the financial performances of renewable energy firms. The conclusions drawn by the present study are helpful for the policymakers in making corresponding financial decisions. The study suggests that policymakers must adopt profitable capital structure strategies for firms and shareholders in this context. Finally, policymakers must design more policies to overcome the adverse influence of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and avoid any future unforeseeable pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , China/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Pandemics/economics , Industry/economics , Renewable Energy/economicsABSTRACT
This paper analyzes the determinants of COVID-19 mortality across over 140 countries in 2020, with a focus on healthcare expenditure and corruption. It finds a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and aging populations, obesity rates, and healthcare expenditure while noting a negative association with rural residency and corruption perception. The study further reveals that mortality is positively associated with aging populations in high-income countries and positively associated with obesity in upper-middle to high-income countries. Mortality is positively associated with healthcare expenditure, which likely reflects a country's preparedness and ability to better track, document, and report COVID-19 deaths. On the other hand, mortality is negatively associated with corruption perception in upper-middle-income countries. Further analyses based on 2021 data reveal COVID-19 deaths are positively associated with the proportion of the population aged 65 and older in low to lower-middle-income countries, with obesity in high-income countries, and with tobacco use across most countries. Interestingly, there is no evidence linking COVID-19 deaths to healthcare expenditure and corruption perception, suggesting a post-2020 convergence in preparedness likely due to proactive pandemic responses, which might have also mitigated corruption's impact. Policy recommendations are proposed to aid the elderly, address obesity, and combat tobacco use.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Expenditures , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , Humans , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Obesity/mortality , Obesity/economics , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Policy , Health Services Research , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mediterranean Region , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economics , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Middle EastABSTRACT
The inefficiency observed in investment within state-owned enterprises presents a significant practical challenge that can affect the sustainable development of China's economy. To address this issue, this study comprehensively explores the intricate mechanisms underlying the governance implications of mixed ownership on the investment efficiency of listed companies. Drawing on unbalanced panel data encompassing Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange A-share listed companies in China spanning the period from 2008 to 2022, this study employs a fixed-effects model to unveil the nuanced ways in which mixed ownership influences investment efficiency through the lens of agency costs. This study transcends the boundaries of traditional agency conflicts between managers and shareholders. It delves deeper, illuminating the diverse effects of agency conflicts between significant controlling shareholders and minority shareholders. The results revealed a noteworthy positive correlation between mixed ownership and investment efficiency, and verified the intermediary role of agency costs between mixed ownership and investment efficiency, which is an important result of our research. Heterogeneity analysis indicates that the relationship between the two can be affected by external events, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, investment efficiency is not the most concerned issue for enterprises. The findings have practical implications for practitioners and policymakers, as they offer avenues for optimizing investment strategies and fostering efficient and effective corporate governance practices.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Investments , Ownership , China , Investments/economics , Ownership/economics , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/economicsABSTRACT
During the initial months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mBio experienced a large increase in the number of submissions, a phenomenon that was also observed for journals of different fields. Since most research laboratories were closed, this increase cannot reflect increased research activity. In this editorial, we propose that the increase in submissions reflected the release of a backlog of unpublished work following a reduction in work-related engagements including scientific travel, which in turn provides an estimate of the productivity costs of such activities on research output.