scholarly journals Average lost work productivity due to non-fatal injuries by type in the USA

2020 ◽  
pp. injuryprev-2019-043607
Author(s):  
Cora Peterson ◽  
Likang Xu ◽  
Sarah Beth L Barnett

ObjectiveTo estimate the average lost work productivity due to non-fatal injuries in the USA comprehensively by injury type.MethodsThe attributable average number and value of lost work days in the year following non-fatal emergency department (ED)–treated injuries were estimated by injury mechanism (eg, fall) and body region (eg, head and neck) among individuals age 18–64 with employer health insurance injured 1 October 2014 through 30 September 2015 as reported in MarketScan medical claims and Health and Productivity Management databases. Workplace, short-term disability and workers’ compensation absences were assessed. Multivariable regression models compared lost work days among injury patients and matched controls during the year following injured patients’ ED visit, controlling for demographic, clinical and health insurance factors. Lost work days were valued using an average US daily market production estimate. Costs are 2015 USD.ResultsThe 1-year per-person average number and value of lost work days due to all types of non-fatal injuries combined were approximately 11 days and US$1590. The range by injury mechanism was 1.5 days (US$210) for bites and stings to 44.1 days (US$6196) for motorcycle injuries. The range by body region was 4.0 days (US$567) for other head, face and neck injuries to 19.8 days (US$2787) for traumatic brain injuries.Conclusions and relevanceInjuries are costly and preventable. Accurate estimates of attributable lost work productivity are important to monitor the economic burden of injuries and help to prioritise cost-effective public health prevention activities.

2019 ◽  
pp. injuryprev-2019-043544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Peterson ◽  
Likang Xu ◽  
Curtis Florence

ObjectiveTo estimate the average medical care cost of fatal and non-fatal injuries in the USA comprehensively by injury type.MethodsThe attributable cost of injuries was estimated by mechanism (eg, fall), intent (eg, unintentional), body region (eg, head and neck) and nature of injury (eg, fracture) among patients injured from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015. The cost of fatal injuries was the multivariable regression-adjusted average among patients who died in hospital emergency departments (EDs) or inpatient settings as reported in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample and National Inpatient Sample, controlling for demographic (eg, age), clinical (eg, comorbidities) and health insurance (eg, Medicaid) factors. The 1-year attributable cost of non-fatal injuries was assessed among patients with ED-treated injuries using MarketScan medical claims data. Multivariable regression models compared total medical payments (inpatient, outpatient, drugs) among non-fatal injury patients versus matched controls during the year following injury patients’ ED visit, controlling for demographic, clinical and insurance factors. All costs are 2015 US dollars.ResultsThe average medical cost of all fatal injuries was approximately $6880 and $41 570 per ED-based and hospital-based patient, respectively (range by injury type: $4764–$10 289 and $31 912–$95 295). The average attributable 1-year cost of all non-fatal injuries per person initially treated in an ED was approximately $6620 (range by injury type: $1698–$80 172).Conclusions and relevanceInjuries are costly and preventable. Accurate estimates of attributable medical care costs are important to monitor the economic burden of injuries and help to prioritise cost-effective public health prevention activities.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Rihani ◽  
Jennifer Usinger ◽  
Nicola Jungbäck ◽  
Gabriele Stumm ◽  
Thorsten Schulz ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Sports-related mild traumatic brain injuries (sports related concussion, SRC) have received increasing attention since neurodegenerative processes have been linked to repetitive SRCs. Return-to-Play (RTP) rules have been established for medical advised return into sports activities after concussion, but it is not clear if these rules also reach the sports clubs and its young athletes. OBJECTIVE In youth sports, athletes and their parents search the internet for advice after SRC. We therefore investigated which websites of German sports associations and clubs in football (soccer), handball and rugby offer information on SRC and RTP rules. METHODS The systematic analysis included websites of local football, handball and rugby clubs in two comparable regions in Southern Bavaria and Lower Saxony. The websites of the regional and the German umbrella associations were also included into the study. Eight criteria of the revised Sport Concussion Consensus Statement served as standard for the evaluation according to the protocol published by Swallow et al. (J Neurosurg Pediatr, 2018). RESULTS No information on RTP rules or the topic “sports-related brain injuries” could be found on any of the clubs’ websites. Only the Bavarian Football Association and the Rugby Association sporadically provided information on the topic. The German umbrella associations in football and rugby take up international documents and regulations of the European and the world associations. No information could be found at the German Handball Association. CONCLUSIONS The topics of sports-related brain injuries and RTP rules are mostly neglected on the analysed Websites. This is remarkable, as there are clearly defined consensus guidelines which are widely accepted in international comparison. Especially in the USA, online information on this topic has become standard.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e017828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Andrew Lauer ◽  
Andrew J Houtenville

ObjectiveA national priority for disability research in the USA is the standardised identification of people with disabilities in surveillance efforts. Mandated by federal statute, six dichotomous difficulty-focused questions were implemented in national surveys to identify people with disabilities. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence, demographic characteristics and social factors among people with disabilities based on these six questions using multiple national surveys in the USA.SettingAmerican Community Survey (ACS), Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).ParticipantsCivilian, non-institutionalised US residents aged 18 and over from the 2009 to 2014 ACS, 2009 to 2014 CPS-ASEC, 2009 to 2014 NHIS and 2008 SIPP waves 3, 7 and 10.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDisability was assessed using six standardised questions asking people about hearing, vision, cognition, ambulatory, self-care and independent living disabilities. Social factors were assessed with questions asking people to report their education, employment status, family size, health and marital status, health insurance and income.ResultsRisk ratios and demographic distributions for people with disabilities were consistent across survey. People with disabilities were at decreased risk of having college education, employment, families with three or more people, excellent or very good self-reported health and a spouse. People with disabilities were also consistently at greater risk of having health insurance and living below the poverty line. Estimates of disability prevalence varied between surveys from 2009 to 2014 (range 11.76%–17.08%).ConclusionReplicating the existing literature, we found the estimation of disparities and inequity people with disabilities experience to be consistent across survey. Although there was a range of prevalence estimates, demographic factors for people with disabilities were consistent across surveys. Variations in prevalence estimates can be explained by survey context effects.


Author(s):  
Mark Merlis

Proposals to provide or subsidize health insurance for low-income families must take account of the fact that many workers have access to employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), but decline it because of required employee premium contributions. This article considers a tax credit for the employee share of ESI in the context of a broader program of income-based health insurance tax credits. Helping uninsured workers pay for available ESI could be more cost-effective than subsidizing their coverage in the nongroup market. The credit would also be available to workers who were already covered, both for equity reasons and to reduce the incentives for employers to drop coverage or for workers to shift to subsidized individual plans. One key issue is how to prevent employers from reducing their current health plan contributions to take advantage of the new funding. Other design questions considered by the article include whether workers should be able to choose between ESI and nongroup coverage, whether minimum benefit standards should apply for employer plans, and how to achieve a fair balance in subsidies for group and nongroup coverage.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17000-e17000
Author(s):  
Joon Yau Leong ◽  
Ruben Pinkhasov ◽  
Thenappan Chandrasekar ◽  
Oleg Shapiro ◽  
Michael Daneshvar ◽  
...  

e17000 Background: Disabled patients are a unique minority population that may have lower literacy levels and difficulty communicating with physicians. Furthermore, their knowledge for cancer prevention recommendations is unknown. Herein, we aim to compare prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing rates and associated predictors among disabled men and non-disabled men in the USA. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study utilizing the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) to analyze factors predicting PSA testing rates in men with disabilities (disabled, deaf, blind). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine clinically significant predictors of PSA testing in men with disabilities compared to that of the healthy cohort. Results: A total of 782 (14.6%) disabled men were compared to 4,569 (85.4%) non-disabled men. Disabled men were older with a mean age of 65.0 ± 14.2 vs. 55.0 ± 15.9 years (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for all available confounders including race, age, geographical region, survey year, marital status, health insurance, healthcare provider, amongst others, men with any disability were less likely to undergo PSA screening (OR 0.772, 95% CI 0.623-0.956, p = 0.018). Variables associated with increased PSA screening rates included age, having a healthcare provider or health insurance, and living with a partner. Although prostate cancer detection rates were shown to be higher among disabled men, this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Our data suggests that significant inequalities in PSA screening exist among men with disabilities in the USA, with disabled men, especially the deaf and the blind, being less likely to be offered PSA screening. There is a clear need to implement strategies to reduce existing gaps in the care of disabled men and strive to reach equality in PSA screening in this unique population.


Author(s):  
E. Telegina ◽  
M. Tadzhiev

According to judgemental forecasts, in the next few years the revolutionary changes in the energy complex both in the USA and in the world in general are hardly possible, considering the enormous inertia of the energetic system and high expenses coming from the infrastructure supersession, even in case of cost-effective alternatives to the existing energy commodities. At the same time, the sharpening of energy security problems resulting from the growth of a global demand on energy products leads to perceprion of necessity for a new approach to forming the global energy market, and to development of new stability and reliability strategies maintenance for assured supplies of energy products. In recent years, the USA as the biggest consumer of energy resources in the world worked out a new national strategy of energy security provision. Its main targets are: meeting the requirements of the American economy of its own resources, lowering the import-dependence level, high use of innovation technologies, significant increase of investments in alternative energy sources, as well as of resource-and energy-saving.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-399
Author(s):  
Natalie R. Wodniak

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to further understand the medical experiences of Karen refugees who have been resettled to the USA. It examines the use of traditional medicine throughout the transition from Burma to the USA, as well as refugees’ experiences in the American healthcare system. This study aims to identify shortcomings in refugees’ access to preferred methods of healthcare. Design/methodology/approach Interviews were conducted with 39 Karen refugees in 3 US cities with large populations of refugees from Burma – Fort Wayne, Indiana; Amarillo, Texas; and Buffalo, New York. Participants were asked questions about their healthcare experiences in Burma and the USA, their use of traditional medicine in both countries and their satisfaction with medical care in the USA. Findings Nearly all interviewees reported using traditional medicine in Burma, but only six felt able to continue to use traditional methods in the USA. Most participants had positive experiences with healthcare in America, but 15 expressed dissatisfaction with obtaining health insurance and confusion over its coverage. Findings also indicate that refugees do not feel that traditional practices are accepted in the USA. Research limitations/implications Due to the language barrier, a phone interpreter was used for non-English-speaking participants, which may have affected proper understanding or clarity of answers. Practical implications This study brings to attention the need to improve refugee healthcare by encouraging traditional practices and assisting refugees with obtaining health insurance. Originality/value This paper identifies the importance of analyzing the accessibility of various forms of healthcare, including traditional medicine, to refugees in the USA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document