Incidence rate of psychiatric disorders in 2020: The pivotal role played by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IMPORTANCE: The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted mental health outcomes. While the frequency of anxiety and depressive symptoms has increased in the whole population, the relationship between COVID-19 and new psychiatric diagnoses remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the population incidence rate of emergence of de novo psychiatric disorders in 2020 compared to the previous years, and to compare the incidence rate of new psychiatric disorder diagnoses between people with vs without COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study utilized administrative claims data from the Clinformatics® Data Mart database, licensed from Optum®. The study is a cross-sectional analysis that compared the incidence rate of new psychiatric disorders in 2020 vs. 2018 and 2019 in the entire insured population database. Subsequently, the incidence of new psychiatric disorders in people with vs. without COVID-19 during 2020 was analyzed. EXPOSURE: The exposures included diagnosis and severity of COVID-19 infection. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The dependent variables of interest were the incidence rates of new psychiatric disorders, specifically schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. RESULTS: The population studied included 10,463,672 US adults (mean age 52.83, 52% female) who were unique people for the year of 2020. Incidence of newly diagnosed psychiatric disorders per 1,000 individuals in the 2020 whole population were 28.81 (CI: 28.71, 28.92) for anxiety disorders, 1.04 (CI: 1.02, 1.06) for schizophrenia disorders, 0.42 (CI: 0.41, 0.43) for OCD and 28.85 (CI: 28.75, 28.95) for mood disorders. These rates were not significantly higher than 2018 or 2019. When comparing incidence rates between COVID-19 vs. non-COVID-19 populations in 2020, the rates were significantly higher in the COVID-19 population: 46.89 (CI: 46.24, 47.53) for anxiety, 49.31 (CI: 48.66, 49.97) for mood disorders, 0.57 (CI: 0.50, 0.65) for OCD, and 3.52 (CI: 3.34, 3.70) for schizophrenia. COVID-19 severity was significantly associated with new diagnoses of schizophrenia, anxiety and mood disorders in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2018 and 2019, in 2020 there was no increased incidence of new psychiatric disorders in the general population based on insurance claims data. Importantly, people with COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with a new psychiatric disorder, most notably disorders with psychosis, indicating a potential association between COVID-19 and mental/brain health.

Access to Accredited Cancer Hospitals Within Federal Exchange Plans Under the Affordable Care Act.

Purpose The Affordable Care Act expanded access to health insurance in the United States, but concerns have arisen about access to specialized cancer care within narrow provider networks. To characterize the scope and potential impact of this problem, we assessed rates of inclusion of Commission on Cancer (CoC) -accredited hospitals and National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers within federal exchange networks. Methods We downloaded publicly available machine-readable network data and public use files for individual federal exchange plans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the 2016 enrollment year. We linked this information to National Provider Identifier data, identified a set of distinct provider networks, and assessed the rates of inclusion of CoC-accredited hospitals and NCI-designated centers. We measured variation in these rates according to geography, plan type, and metal level. Results Of 4,058 unique individual plans, network data were available for 3,637 (90%); hospital information was available for 3,531 (87%). Provider lists for these plans reduced into 295 unique networks for analysis. Ninety-five percent of networks included at least one CoC-accredited hospital, but just 41% of networks included NCI-designated centers. States and counties each varied substantially in the proportion of networks listed that included NCI-designated centers (range, 0% to 100%). The proportion of networks that included NCI-designated centers also varied by plan type (range, 31% for health maintenance organizations to 49% for preferred provider organizations; P = .04) but not by metal level. Conclusion A large majority of federal exchange networks contain CoC-accredited hospitals, but most do not contain NCI-designated cancer centers. These results will inform policy regarding access to cancer care, and they reinforce the importance of promoting access to clinical trials and specialized care through community sites.

Revisiting the economic efficiencies of observation units.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies cast doubt about the economic efficiency of observation units (OUs). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to reexamine the cost savings of OUs compared with inpatient care. METHODS: Claims for 15,851 patients who were admitted to inpatient or OUs between January 2009 and December 2012 following emergency room (ER) visits for chest pain were retrospectively examined. The two groups were compared for total cost of episode, length of stay (LOS), and utilization rates of diagnostic procedures, including standard exercise and echocardiography stress tests, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and computed tomography (CT) chest scans. Total costs of care and LOS were adjusted for age, gender, risk scores, and comorbidities using quantile regression. RESULTS: More than 37% of the sample was admitted to inpatient units (n = 5,890) vs 62.7% to OUs (n = 9,961). Patients admitted to inpatient units had more comorbidities and longer LOS during their ER visit (median 1.5 adjusted days; 10th percentile = 1, 90th percentile = 3) vs. median 21 adjusted hours for OUs (20, 23). The adjusted median cost of OUs was $5,411 ($4,652, $7,157) vs. $6,946 for inpatient admission ($5,978, $18,683). The estimated adjusted cost saving of OUs was $1,535 (95% CI = $1,206, $1,411) compared with inpatient admission. About 37% of patients admitted to OUs stayed longer than 24 hours. Compared with patients admitted to inpatient units, patients in OUs also received more MPI (35.8% vs. 31.5%), CT scans (13.2% vs. 10.4%), standard exercise test (45.6% vs. 33.8%) and echocardiography stress test (8% vs. 3.4%). CONCLUSION: Despite the increased proportion of patients exceeding the 24-hour LOS and the increased utilization of advanced imaging procedures, OUs are still less costly compared with inpatient admission.