Estimates of the direct and indirect cost savings associated with heart disease that could be avoided through dietary change in the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cawley ◽  
Chad Meyerhoefer ◽  
Leah G. Gillingham ◽  
Penny Kris-Etherton ◽  
Peter J. H. Jones
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanchi Malhotra ◽  
Imran Masood ◽  
Noberto Giglio ◽  
Jay D. Pruetz ◽  
Pia S. Pannaraj

Abstract Background Chagas disease is a pathogenic parasitic infection with approximately 8 million cases worldwide and greater than 300,000 cases in the United States (U.S.). Chagas disease can lead to chronic cardiomyopathy and cardiac complications, with variable cardiac presentations in pediatrics making it difficult to recognize. The purpose of our study is to better understand current knowledge and experience with Chagas related heart disease among pediatric cardiologists in the U.S. Methods We prospectively disseminated a 19-question survey to pediatric cardiologists via 3 pediatric cardiology listservs. The survey included questions about demographics, Chagas disease presentation and experience. Results Of 139 responses, 119 cardiologists treat pediatric patients in the U.S. and were included. Most providers (87%) had not seen a case of Chagas disease in their practice; however, 72% also had never tested for it. The majority of knowledge-based questions about Chagas disease cardiac presentations were answered incorrectly, and 85% of providers expressed discomfort with recognizing cardiac presentations in children. Most respondents selected that they would not include Chagas disease on their differential diagnosis for presentations such as conduction anomalies, myocarditis and/or apical aneurysms, but would be more likely to include it if found in a Latin American immigrant. Of respondents, 87% agreed that they would be likely to attend a Chagas disease-related lecture. Conclusions Pediatric cardiologists in the U.S. have seen very few cases of Chagas disease, albeit most have not sent testing or included it in their differential diagnosis. Most individuals agreed that education on Chagas disease would be worth-while.


Pneumonia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bisma Ali Sayed ◽  
Drew L. Posey ◽  
Brian Maskery ◽  
La’Marcus T. Wingate ◽  
Martin S. Cetron

Abstract Background While persons who receive immigrant and refugee visas are screened for active tuberculosis before admission into the United States, nonimmigrant visa applicants (NIVs) are not routinely screened and may enter the United States with infectious tuberculosis. Objectives We evaluated the costs and benefits of expanding pre-departure tuberculosis screening requirements to a subset of NIVs who arrive from a moderate (Mexico) or high (India) incidence tuberculosis country with temporary work visas. Methods We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the program costs and estimate the numbers of active tuberculosis cases that may be diagnosed in the United States in two scenarios: 1) “Screening”: screening and treatment for tuberculosis among NIVs in their home country with recommended U.S. follow-up for NIVs at elevated risk of active tuberculosis; and, 2) “No Screening” in their home country so that cases would be diagnosed passively and treatment occurs after entry into the United States. Costs were assessed from multiple perspectives, including multinational and U.S.-only perspectives. Results Under “Screening” versus “No Screening”, an estimated 179 active tuberculosis cases and 119 hospitalizations would be averted in the United States annually via predeparture treatment. From the U.S.-only perspective, this program would result in annual net cost savings of about $3.75 million. However, rom the multinational perspective, the screening program would cost $151,388 per U.S. case averted for Indian NIVs and $221,088 per U.S. case averted for Mexican NIVs. Conclusion From the U.S.-only perspective, the screening program would result in substantial cost savings in the form of reduced treatment and hospitalization costs. NIVs would incur increased pre-departure screening and treatment costs.


Author(s):  
Robert I. Roth ◽  
Nicholas M. Fleischer

Recent years have seen the approvals, more so in the EU than the United States, of follow-on biological drugs. These products have been new formulations of recombinant therapeutic proteins, developed to compete with the marketed originator products. Intended to closely mimic the originator products in terms of chemistry and therapeutic properties, these so-called ‘biosimilar’ products were initially conceived to be developed according to abbreviated development programmes, presumably at a substantial cost savings to both the drug developer and the consumer. With several such products now recently approved, however, it has become clear that their development programmes have been quite extensive and not particularly abbreviated. Accordingly, cost savings to consumers appear to be relatively modest.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Mhlaba ◽  
Emily W. Stockert ◽  
Martin Coronel ◽  
Alexander J. Langerman

Objective: Operating rooms (OR) generate a large portion of hospital revenue and waste. Consequently, improving efficiency and reducing waste is a high priority. Our objective was to quantify waste associated with opened but unused instruments from trays and to compare this with the cost of individually wrapping instruments.Methods: Data was collected from June to November of 2013 in a 550-bed hospital in the United States. We recorded the instrument usage of two commonly-used trays for ten cases each. The time to decontaminate and reassemble instrument trays and peel packs was measured, and the cost to reprocess one instrument was calculated.Results: Average utilization was 14% for the Plastic Soft Tissue Tray and 29% for the Major Laparotomy Tray. Of 98 instruments in the Plastics tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 59% were used in no observed cases. Of 110 instruments in the Major Tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 25% were used in no observed cases. Average cost to reprocess one instrument was $0.34-$0.47 in a tray and $0.81-$0.84 in a peel pack, or individually-wrapped instrument.Conclusions: We estimate that the cost of peel packing an instrument is roughly two times the cost of tray packing. Therefore, it becomes more cost effective from a processing standpoint to package an instrument in a peel pack when there is less than a 42%-56% probability of use depending on instrument type. This study demonstrates an opportunity for reorganization of instrument delivery that could result in a significant cost-savings and waste reduction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document