Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Revision Digit Amputation Performed in the Emergency Department Versus the Operating Room

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of performing initial revision finger amputation in the emergency department (ED) versus in the operating room (OR) accounting for need for unplanned secondary revision in the OR. Methods: We retrospectively examined patients presenting to the ED with traumatic finger and thumb amputations from January 2010 to December 2015. Only those treated with primarily revision amputation were included. Following initial management, the need for unplanned reoperation was assessed and associated with setting of initial management. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness threshold for initial management in the ED versus the OR. Results: Five hundred thirty-seven patients had 677 fingertip amputations, of whom 91 digits were initially primarily revised in the OR, and 586 digits were primarily revised in the ED. Following initial revision, 91 digits required unplanned secondary revision. The unplanned secondary revision rates were similar between settings: 13.7% digits from the ED and 12.1% of digits from the OR ( P = .57). When accounting for direct costs, an incidence of unplanned revision above 77.0% after initial revision fingertip amputation in the ED would make initial revision fingertip amputation in the OR cost-effective. Therefore, based on the unplanned secondary revision rate, initial management in the ED is more cost-effective than in the OR. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the incidence of unplanned/secondary revision of fingertip amputation rate after the initial procedure was performed in the ED versus the OR.

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile App-Guided Training in Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST): A Randomized Trial

Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound ◽

10.1055/s-0043-119354 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (06) ◽

pp. 642-647 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Philip Nilsson ◽

Tobias Todsen ◽

Yousif Subhi ◽

Ole Graumann ◽

Christian Nolsøe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Transfer Test ◽

Clinical Skills ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Skills Training ◽

Mobile App ◽

Point Change ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Cost

Abstract Purpose Ultrasound training is associated with a long learning curve and use of substantial faculty resources. Self-directed ultrasound training may decrease the need for faculty-led teaching. Mobile apps seem promising for use in self-directed ultrasound training, but no studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of mobile app-guided training versus traditional formats such as textbook-guided training. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mobile app-guided versus textbook-guided ultrasound training. Material and methods First-year residents (n = 38) with no previous ultrasound experience were randomized into mobile app-guided versus textbook-guided self-directed ultrasound training groups. Participants completed a transfer test involving four patient cases and a theoretical test on diagnostic accuracy. Two ultrasound experts assessed the residents’ performance using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale. The costs of developing mobile app and textbook material were calculated and used for the analysis of cost-effectiveness. Results 34 participants completed the transfer test. There was no statistically significant difference in test performance or diagnostic accuracy between the mobile app-guided (mean-OSAUS 42.3 % [95 %CI38.5 – 46.0 %]) and textbook-guided groups (mean-OSAUS 45.3 % [95 %CI39.3 – 51.3 %]) (d.f. [1.33] = 0.45, p = 0.41). However, development costs differed greatly for each instructional format. Textbook-guided training was significantly more cost-effective than mobile app-guided training (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio -861 967 [95 %CI-1071.7 to-3.2] USD/pct. point change in OSAUS score). Conclusion Mobile app-guided ultrasound training is less cost-effective than textbook-guided self-directed training. This study underlines the need for careful evaluation of cost-effectiveness when introducing technological innovations for clinical skills training.

Download Full-text

A Pharmacoeconomics Study for Anticoagulants used for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Al-Najaf Al-Ashraf city –Iraq(Conference Paper )#

Iraqi Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences ( P-ISSN 1683 - 3597 E-ISSN 2521 - 3512) ◽

10.31351/vol30isssuppl.pp48-59 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 30 (Suppl.) ◽

pp. 48-59

Author(s):

Fatimah Baqer Alqubbanchi ◽

Fadya Yaqoob Al-Hamadani

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

P Value ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Cost ◽

D Dimer

Abstract Background: The novel coronavirus 2 (SARS?CoV?2) pandemic is a pulmonary disease, which leads to cardiac, hematologic, and renal complications. Anticoagulants are used for COVID-19 infected patients because the infection increases the risk of thrombosis. The world health organization (WHO), recommend prophylaxis dose of anticoagulants: (Enoxaparin or unfractionated Heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease. This has created an urgent need to identify effective medications for COVID-19 prevention and treatment. The value of COVID-19 treatments is affected by cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform relative value and how to best maximize social welfare through evidence-based pricing decisions. Objective: compare the clinical outcome and the costs of two anticoagulants (heparin and (enoxaparin)) used to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. Patients and method: The study was a retrospective review of medical records of adult, non-pregnant, COVID-19 infected hospitalized patients who had baseline and last outcome measurements at Alamal Epidemiology Center, Al-Najaf city from (Augast 2020 to June 2021). The outcome measures included D-dimer, length of stay (LOS), and mortality rate. Only the cost of the medical treatment was considered in the analysis. The pharmacoeconomics analysis was done in three different cost-effectiveness analysis methods. Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), was used to conduct statistical analysis. Kaplan Meier test was used to compare the mortality rate. T-TEST was used to compare the outcomes of the two groups. Results and discussion: two groups were compared, the first group consists of 72 patients who received heparin, and the second group consists of 72 patients who received enoxaparin. COVID-19 infected patients had a higher abnormal average D-dimer (2534.675 ng/dl). No significant differences between both genders with regards to the basal average D-dimer (males= 2649.95 ng/dl, females= 2374.1mg/dl, P-value>0.05). There was a significant difference between patient's ages 60 years and patients <60. (3177.33 ng/dl, 1763.06 ng/dl, P-value <0.05). It seems that, higher D-dimer levels were associated with a higher mortality rate (died=3166.263 ng/dl, survived= 1729.94 ng/dl, P-value <0.05). Heparin was more effective in decreasing D-dimer levels than enoxaparin which inversely increased the D-dimer levels (-24.4 ng/dl/day, +154.701 ng/dl/day, P-value <0.05). Additionally, heparin was more effective in increasing the survival rate compared to enoxaparin (55% vs, 35%, P-value<0.05). Heparin was associated with a longer duration of stay in hospital than enoxaparin but with no significant difference (13.7 days, 12.3 days, P-value >0.05). Concerning the cost, treatment with heparin cost less than enoxaparin (2.08 U.S $, 9.44 U.S $)/per patient/per day. Conclusion: Originator heparin was a more cost-effective anticoagulant therapy compared to originator enoxaparin, it was associated with a lower cost and better effect, treatment with Heparin resulted in positive INB= 11.3, where a positive result means that heparin is more cost-effective than Enoxaparin. All three methods of pharmacoeconomic analysis decide that heparin was more cost-effective than enoxaparin in treating COVID-19 infected patients.

Download Full-text

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.3889/oamjms.2019.515 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (22) ◽

pp. 3837-3840

Author(s):

Faridah Baroroh ◽

Andriana Sari ◽

Noviana Masruroh

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Hypertension Therapy ◽

The Mean ◽

The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

Download Full-text

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model

Journal of Crohn s and Colitis ◽

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa219 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Remi Mahmoud ◽

Chris van Lieshout ◽

Geert W J Frederix ◽

Bindia Jharap ◽

Bas Oldenburg

Keyword(s):

Ulcerative Colitis ◽

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Markov Model ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Health Care Expenditures ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Cost ◽

Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽

Effectiveness Threshold

Abstract Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Prospective Study of the Cost -Effectiveness of the Conventional Spike, O-Set, and Uvxd Techniques in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Peritoneal Dialysis International ◽

10.1177/089686089401400311 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. 255-260 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Ignatius K.P. Cheng ◽

Ching-Ying Chan ◽

Suk-Wai Cheng ◽

Joana F.M. Poon ◽

Yu-Lian Ji ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Training Time ◽

Outpatient Visits ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Hospital Stays ◽

One Year ◽

The Cost

Objective To compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of three techniques for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): the conventional spike technique (C), the O-set (0), and UVXD (U, ultraviolet irradiation connection box). Design A randomized and prospective comparison of three CAPD techniques. Setting A tertiary referral and a satellite dialysis center.. Patients: One hundred patients with end-stage renal failure between 10 and 70 years of age, with good handeye coordination and not anticipated to receive a living related transplant within 6 months. Interventions Patients were randomized by referral to a table of random numbers to perform one of the three CAPD techniques. Main Outcome Measures Training time, details of peritonitis and exit-site infection (ESI) including the costs of antibiotic treatment, outpatient visits, hospital stays, technique, and patient survival were analyzed after a minimum follow-up period of one year. Results There were 38, 31, and 31 patients in groups C, 0, and U, respectively, and the total observation periods were 838,802, and 745 patient-months, respectively. The peritonitis rates for C, 0, and U were 21.5, 30.8, and 29.8 patient-months/episode, respectively. The corresponding ESI rates were 16.4,14.9, and 24 patient-months/ episode, respectively. When the time from the commencement of CAPD to the first infection was expressed using the Kaplan-Meier life table analysis, 39.5%, 67.7%, and 61.3% of patients in Groups C, 0, and U were free from peritonitis at one year (p = 0.088). The corresponding figures for ESI were 52.6%, 48.4%, and 61.3% (p = 0.35). There was no significant difference in technique survival in the three treatment groups. An analysis of the costs related to the use of antibiotics, outpatient visits, and hospital stays necessary for the treatment of peritonitis and ESI and those related to training time, additional equipment, and consumables required for the three CAPD techniques showed that, overall, the cost in 0 was the lowest, followed by U and C (U.S. $158, $170, and $179 per patient-month, respectively). Conclusion It was concluded that the O-set is a more cost-effective CAPD technique than UVXD, while both are more cost-effective than the conventional spike technique.

Download Full-text

Economic Impact of Home-Use versus Office-Use Diphenylcyclopropenone in Extensive Alopecia Areata

Skin Appendage Disorders ◽

10.1159/000520568 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Chinmanat Lekhavat ◽

Pinyo Rattanaumpawan ◽

Isree Juengsamranphong

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Side Effects ◽

Alopecia Areata ◽

Treatment Guidelines ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Real World Data ◽

Alternative Treatment Option ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Cost

Introduction: Diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP) is the medication of choice for the treatment of severe alopecia areata (AA) according to AA treatment guidelines. Precise initiation and application are important factors for successful treatment. However, it is difficult for patients who live far away to visit their doctor weekly. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the cost, effectiveness, and side effects of DPCP treatment between office-use DPCP (O-DPCP) and home-use DPCP (H-DPCP) in severe AA patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of healthcare providers and patients using real-world data and the national cost statistics for hospital services comparing O-DPCP and H-DPCP in patients with severe AA at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Results: Two groups of 41 patients treated with O-DPCP and H-DPCP were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who showed a favorable outcome (≥50% improvement) with minimal side effects between both groups at 24 (O-DPCP 43.9% vs. H-DPCP 26.8%, p = 0.11), 36 (O-DPCP 58.5% vs. H-DPCP 43.9%, p = 0.19), or 48 weeks (O-DPCP 63.4% vs. H-DPCP 56.1%, p = 0.49). The cost of H-DPCP was half of the cost of O-DPCP. Discussion/Conclusion: H-DPCP is a cost-effective and time-efficient alternative treatment option for severe AA patients.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assessment team at an academic tertiary care emergency department

CJEM ◽

10.1017/cem.2015.88 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 191-204 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ivy Cheng ◽

Maaret Castren ◽

Alex Kiss ◽

Merrick Zwarenstein ◽

Mats Brommels ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Additional Patient ◽

Patient Volume ◽

Benefit Ratio ◽

Cost Benefit Ratio ◽

The Cost

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) from a hospital and patient perspective.MethodsThis was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cluster randomized control trial comparing the MDRNSTAT with nurse-only triage in the emergency department (ED) between the hours of 0800 and 1500. Cost was MDRNSTAT salary. Revenue was from Ontario’s Pay-for-Results and patient volume-case mix payment programs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was based on MDRNSTAT cost and three consequence assessments: 1) per additional patient-seen; 2) per physician initial assessment (PIA) hour saved; and 3) per ED length of stay (EDLOS) hour saved. Patient opportunity cost was determined. Patient satisfaction was quantified by a cost-benefit ratio. A sensitivity analysis extrapolating MDRNSTAT to different working hours, salary, and willingness-to-pay data was performed.ResultsThe added cost of the MDRNSTAT was $3,597.27 [$1,729.47 to ∞] per additional patient-seen, $75.37 [$67.99 to $105.30] per PIA hour saved, and $112.99 [$74.68 to $251.43] per EDLOS hour saved. From the hospital perspective, the cost-benefit ratio was 38.6 [19.0 to ∞] and net present value of –$447,996 [–$435,646 to –$459,900]. For patients, the cost-benefit ratio for satisfaction was 2.8 [2.3 to 4.6]. If MDRNSTAT performance were consistently implemented from noon to midnight, it would be more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe MDRNSTAT is not a cost-effective daytime strategy but appears to be more feasible during time periods with higher patient volume, such as late morning to evening.

Download Full-text

The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1186/s13049-019-0687-2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Lara Nicole Goldstein ◽

Mike Wells ◽

Craig Vincent-Lambert

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Economic Viability ◽

Time Saving ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

The Cost

Abstract Background Time-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account. Results There were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical. Conclusions In certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations – the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.

Download Full-text

Liquid gold: the cost-effectiveness of urine sample collection methods for young precontinent children

Archives of Disease in Childhood ◽

10.1136/archdischild-2019-317561 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 105 (3) ◽

pp. 253-259 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jonathan Kaufman ◽

Andrew Joshua Knight ◽

Penelope A Bryant ◽

Franz E Babl ◽

Kim Dalziel

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Urine Sample ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Urine Collection ◽

Collection Method ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Hospital Bed ◽

The Cost ◽

Collection Methods

BackgroundUrinary tract infection (UTI) is a common childhood infection. Many febrile children require a urine sample to diagnose or exclude UTI. Collecting urine from young children can be time-consuming, unsuccessful or contaminated. Cost-effectiveness of each collection method in the emergency department is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of urine collection methods for precontinent children.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing non-invasive (urine bag, clean catch and 5 min voiding stimulation for clean catch) and invasive (catheterisation and suprapubic aspirate (SPA)) collection methods, for children aged 0–24 months in the emergency department. Costs included equipment, staff time and hospital bed occupancy. If initial collection attempts were unsuccessful subsequent collection using catheterisation was assumed. The final outcome was a definitive sample incorporating progressive dipstick, culture and contamination results. Average costs and outcomes were calculated for initial collection attempts and obtaining a definitive sample. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsFor initial collection attempts, catheterisation had the lowest cost per successful collection (GBP£25.98) compared with SPA (£37.80), voiding stimulation (£41.32), clean catch (£52.84) and urine bag (£92.60). For definitive collection, catheterisation had the lowest cost per definitive sample (£49.39) compared with SPA (£51.84), voiding stimulation (£52.25), clean catch (£64.82) and urine bag (£112.28). Time occupying a hospital bed was the most significant determinant of cost.ConclusionCatheterisation is the most cost-effective urine collection method, and voiding stimulation is the most cost-effective non-invasive method. Urine bags are the most expensive method. Although clinical factors influence choice of method, considering cost-effectiveness for this common procedure has potential for significant aggregate savings.

Download Full-text

Preventing COVID-19 Transmission on Labor and Delivery: A Decision Analysis

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1713647 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 37 (10) ◽

pp. 1031-1037 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Leah M. Savitsky ◽

Catherine M. Albright

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Labor And Delivery ◽

Induced Labor ◽

The Cost ◽

The Impact ◽

Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽

Effectiveness Threshold

Objective The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). Study Design We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. Results In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. Conclusion Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. Key Points

Download Full-text