What Is the Economic Benefit of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination From the Adult Individual Perspective?

BACKGROUND: With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination no longer mandated by many businesses/organizations, it is now up to individuals to decide whether to get any new boosters/updated vaccines going forward. METHODS: We developed a Markov model representing the potential clinical/economic outcomes from an individual perspective in the United States of getting versus not getting an annual COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: For an 18-49 year old, getting vaccinated at its current price ($60) can save the individual on average $30-$603 if the individual is uninsured and $4-$437 if the individual has private insurance, as long as the starting vaccine efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is ≥50% and the weekly risk of getting infected is ≥0.2%, corresponding to an individual interacting with 9 other people in a day under Winter 2023-2024 Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant conditions with an average infection prevalence of 10%. For a 50-64 year old, these cost-savings increase to $111-$1278 and $119-$1706 for someone without and with insurance, respectively. The risk threshold increases to ≥0.4% (interacting with 19 people/day), when the individual has 13.4% preexisting protection against infection (eg, vaccinated 9 months earlier). CONCLUSIONS: There is both clinical and economic incentive for the individual to continue to get vaccinated against COVID-19 each year.

The potential epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of a universal coronavirus vaccine: a modelling study.

Background: With efforts underway to develop a universal coronavirus vaccine, otherwise known as a pan-coronavirus vaccine, this is the time to offer potential funders, researchers, and manufacturers guidance on the potential value of such a vaccine and how this value may change with differing vaccine and vaccination characteristics. Methods: Using a computational model representing the United States (U.S.) population, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the various clinical and economic outcomes of COVID-19 such as hospitalisations, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, productivity losses, direct medical costs, and total societal costs, we explored the impact of a universal vaccine under different circumstances. We developed and populated this model using data reported by the CDC as well as observational studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: A pan-coronavirus vaccine would be cost saving in the U.S. as a standalone intervention as long as its vaccine efficacy is ≥10% and vaccination coverage is ≥10%. Every 1% increase in efficacy between 10% and 50% could avert an additional 395,000 infections and save $1.0 billion in total societal costs ($45.3 million in productivity losses, $1.1 billion in direct medical costs). It would remain cost saving even when a strain-specific coronavirus vaccine would be subsequently available, as long as it takes at least 2-3 months to develop, test, and bring that more specific vaccine to the market. Interpretation: Our results provide support for the development and stockpiling of a pan-coronavirus vaccine and help delineate the vaccine characteristics to aim for in development of such a vaccine. Funding: The National Science Foundation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the City University of New York.

Modeling Nursing Home Harms From COVID-19 Staff Furlough Policies.

Importance: Current guidance to furlough health care staff with mild COVID-19 illness may prevent the spread of COVID-19 but may worsen nursing home staffing shortages as well as health outcomes that are unrelated to COVID-19. Objective: To compare COVID-19-related with non-COVID-19-related harms associated with allowing staff who are mildly ill with COVID-19 to work while masked. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study, conducted from November 2023 to June 2024, used an agent-based model representing a 100-bed nursing home and its residents, staff, and their interactions; care tasks; and resident and staff health outcomes to simulate the impact of different COVID-19 furlough policies over 1 postpandemic year. Exposures: Simulating increasing proportions of staff who are mildly ill and are allowed to work while wearing N95 respirators under various vaccination coverage, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility and severity, and masking adherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were staff and resident COVID-19 cases, staff furlough days, missed care tasks, nursing home resident hospitalizations (related and unrelated to COVID-19), deaths, and costs. Results: In the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study's 100-bed agent-based model, nursing home understaffing resulted in an annual mean (SD) 93.7 (0.7) missed care tasks daily (22.1%), 38.0 (7.6) resident hospitalizations (5.2%), 4.6 (2.2) deaths (0.6%), and 39.7 (19.8) quality-adjusted life years lost from non-COVID-19-related harms, costing $1 071 950 ($217 200) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) perspective and $1 112 800 ($225 450) from the societal perspective. Under the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant conditions from 2023 to 2024, furloughing all staff who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a mean (SD) 326.5 (69.1) annual furlough days and 649.5 (95% CI, 593.4-705.6) additional missed care tasks, resulting in 4.3 (95% CI, 2.9-5.9) non-COVID-19-related resident hospitalizations and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.2-1.1) deaths, costing an additional $247 090 (95% CI, $203 160-$291 020) from the CMS perspective and $405 250 (95% CI, $358 550-$451 950) from the societal perspective. Allowing 75% of staff who were mildly ill to work while masked was associated with 5 additional staff and 5 additional resident COVID-19 cases without added COVID-19-related hospitalizations but mitigated staffing shortages, with 475.9 additional care tasks being performed annually, 3.5 fewer non-COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 0.4 fewer non-COVID-19-related deaths. Allowing staff who were mildly ill to work ultimately saved an annual mean $85 470 (95% CI, $41 210-$129 730) from the CMS perspective and $134 450 (95% CI, $86 370-$182 540) from the societal perspective. These results were robust to increased vaccination coverage, increased nursing home transmission, increased importation of COVID-19 from the community, and failure to mask while working ill. Conclusion and Relevance: In this modeling study of staff COVID-19 furlough policies, allowing nursing home staff to work with mild COVID-19 illness was associated with fewer resident harms from staffing shortages and missed care tasks than harms from increased COVID-19 transmission, ultimately saving substantial direct medical and societal costs.

Benefits of Meeting the Healthy People 2030 Youth Sports Participation Target.

INTRODUCTION: Healthy People 2030, a U.S. government health initiative, has indicated that increasing youth sports participation to 63.3% is a priority in the U.S. This study quantified the health and economic value of achieving this target. METHODS: An agent-based model developed in 2023 represents each person aged 6-17 years in the U.S. On each simulated day, agents can participate in sports that affect their metabolic and mental health in the model. Each agent can develop different physical and mental health outcomes, associated with direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: Increasing the proportion of youth participating in sports from the most recent participation levels (50.7%) to the Healthy People 2030 target (63.3%) could reduce overweight/obesity prevalence by 3.37% (95% CI=3.35%, 3.39%), resulting in 1.71 million fewer cases of overweight/obesity (95% CI=1.64, 1.77 million). This could avert 352,000 (95% CI=336,200, 367,500) cases of weight-related diseases and gain 1.86 million (95% CI=1.86, 1.87 million) quality-adjusted life years, saving $22.55 billion (95% CI=$22.46, $22.63 billion) in direct medical costs and $25.43 billion (95% CI= $25.25, $25.61 billion) in productivity losses. This would also reduce depression/anxiety symptoms, saving $3.61 billion (95% CI=$3.58, $3.63 billion) in direct medical costs and $28.38 billion (95% CI=$28.20, $28.56 billion) in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that achieving the Healthy People 2030 objective could save third-party payers, businesses, and society billions of dollars for each cohort of persons aged 6-17 years, savings that would continue to repeat with each new cohort. This suggests that even if a substantial amount is invested toward this objective, such investments could pay for themselves.

Health and Economic Value of Eliminating Socioeconomic Disparities in US Youth Physical Activity.

Importance: There are considerable socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in youth physical activity (PA) levels. For example, studies show that lower-SES youth are less active, have lower participation in organized sports and physical education classes, and have more limited access to PA equipment. Objective: To determine the potential public health and economic effects of eliminating disparities in PA levels among US youth SES groups. Design and Setting: An agent-based model representing all 6- to 17-year-old children in the US was used to simulate the epidemiological, clinical, and economic effects of disparities in PA levels among different SES groups and the effect of reducing these disparities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anthropometric measures (eg, body mass index) and the presence and severity of risk factors associated with weight (stroke, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer), as well as direct and indirect cost savings. Results: This model, representing all 50 million US children and adolescents 6 to 17 years old, found that if the US eliminates the disparity in youth PA levels across SES groups, absolute overweight and obesity prevalence would decrease by 0.826% (95% CI, 0.821%-0.832%), resulting in approximately 383 000 (95% CI, 368 000-399 000) fewer cases of overweight and obesity and 101 000 (95% CI, 98 000-105 000) fewer cases of weight-related diseases (stroke and coronary heart disease events, type 2 diabetes, or cancer). This would result in more than $15.60 (95% CI, $15.01-$16.10) billion in cost savings over the youth cohort's lifetime. There are meaningful benefits even when reducing the disparity by just 25%, which would result in $1.85 (95% CI, $1.70-$2.00) billion in direct medical costs averted and $2.48 (95% CI, $2.04-$2.92) billion in productivity losses averted. For every 1% in disparity reduction, total productivity losses would decrease by about $83.8 million, and total direct medical costs would decrease by about $68.7 million. Conclusions and Relevance: This study quantified the potential savings from eliminating or reducing PA disparities, which can help policymakers, health care systems, schools, funders, sports organizations, and other businesses better prioritize investments toward addressing these disparities.

How the Timing of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination of Nursing Home Residents and Staff Affects Its Value.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of an annual nursing home (NH) COVID-19 vaccine campaign and the impact of when vaccination starts. DESIGN: Agent-based model representing a typical NH. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: NH residents and staff. METHODS: We used the model representing an NH with 100 residents, its staff, their interactions, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of varying schedules of annual COVID-19 vaccine campaigns. RESULTS: Across a range of scenarios with a 60% vaccine efficacy that wanes starting 4 months after protection onset, vaccination was cost saving or cost-effective when initiated in the late summer or early fall. Annual vaccination averted 102 to 105 COVID-19 cases when 30-day vaccination campaigns began between July and October (varying with vaccination start), decreasing to 97 and 85 cases when starting in November and December, respectively. Starting vaccination between July and December saved $3340 to $4363 and $64,375 to $77,548 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and societal perspectives, respectively (varying with vaccination start). Vaccination's value did not change when varying the COVID-19 peak between December and February. The ideal vaccine campaign timing was not affected by reducing COVID-19 levels in the community, or varying transmission probability, preexisting immunity, or COVID-19 severity. However, if vaccine efficacy wanes more quickly (over 1 month), earlier vaccination in July resulted in more cases compared with vaccinating later in October. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Annual vaccination of NH staff and residents averted the most cases when initiated in the late summer through early fall, at least 2 months before the COVID-19 winter peak but remained cost saving or cost-effective when it starts in the same month as the peak. This supports tethering COVID vaccination to seasonal influenza campaigns (typically in September-October) for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 winter surges in NHs.