Estimation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Costs From a Large Electronic Administrative Discharge Database, March 2020–July 2021

Background Information on the costs of inpatient care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is very limited. This study estimates the per-patient cost of inpatient care for adult COVID-19 patients seen at >800 US hospitals. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 hospitalization during March 2020–July 2021 with a COVID-19 diagnosis code in a large electronic administrative discharge database were included. We used validated costs when reported; otherwise, costs were calculated using charges multiplied by cost-to-charge ratios. We estimated costs of inpatient care per patient overall and by severity indicator, age, sex, underlying medical conditions, and acute complications of COVID-19 using a generalized linear model with log link function and gamma distribution. Results The overall cost among 654673 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was $16.2 billion. Estimated per-patient hospitalization cost was $24 826. Among surviving patients, estimated per-patient cost was $13 090 without intensive care unit (ICU) admission or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), $21 222 with ICU admission alone, and $59 742 with IMV. Estimated per-patient cost among patients who died was $27 017. Adjusted cost differential was higher among patients with certain underlying conditions (eg, chronic kidney disease [$12 391], liver disease [$8878], cerebrovascular disease [$7267], and obesity [$5933]) and acute complications (eg, acute respiratory distress syndrome [$43 912], pneumothorax [$25 240], and intracranial hemorrhage [$22 280]). Conclusions The cost of inpatient care for COVID-19 patients was substantial through the first 17 months of the pandemic. These estimates can be used to inform policy makers and planners and cost-effectiveness analysis of public health interventions to alleviate the burden of COVID-19.

Evaluation of Patient Experience from Telemedicine Use for an Anesthesiology Pain Division: Time, Cost, and Patient Satisfaction Analysis (Preprint)

BACKGROUND An increasing number of patients require outpatient and interventional pain management. To help meet the rising demand for anesthesia pain subspecialty care in rural and metropolitan areas, healthcare providers have utilized telemedicine for pain management of both interventional and chronic pain patients. OBJECTIVE This study describes telemedicine implementation for pain management at an academic pain division in a large metropolitan area. The study estimates patient cost savings from telemedicine, before and after the California COVID-19 "Safer at Home" directive, and patient satisfaction with telemedicine for pain management care. METHODS This was a retrospective, observational case series study of telemedicine use in a pain division at an urban academic medical center. From August 2019 to June 2020, we evaluated 1,398 patients and conducted 2,948 video visits for remote pain management care. We utilize publicly available IRS Statistics of Income data to estimate hourly earnings by zip code in order to estimate patient cost savings. We estimate median travel time, travel distance, direct cost of travel, and time-based opportunity savings and report patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS Telemedicine patients avoided an estimated median roundtrip driving distance of 26 miles and a median travel time of 69 minutes during afternoon traffic conditions. Within sample, the median hourly earnings was $28/hr. Patients saved a median of $22 on gas and parking and a total of $52 per telemedicine visit based on estimated hourly earnings and travel time. Patients evaluated serially with telemedicine for medication management saved a median of $156 over three visits. 91% of patients surveyed (n = 313) were satisfied with their telemedicine experience. CONCLUSIONS Telemedicine use for pain management reduced travel distance, travel time, and travel and time-based opportunity costs for pain patients. We achieved the successful implementation of telemedicine across a pain division in an urban academic medical center with high patient satisfaction and patient cost savings.

Socio-protective effects of active case finding on catastrophic costs from tuberculosis in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam: a longitudinal patient cost survey

Background Many tuberculosis (TB) patients incur catastrophic costs. Active case finding (ACF) may have socio-protective properties that could contribute to the WHO End TB Strategy target of zero TB-affected families suffering catastrophic costs, but available evidence remains limited. This study measured catastrophic cost incurrence and socioeconomic impact of an episode of TB and compared those socioeconomic burdens in patients detected by ACF versus passive case finding (PCF). Methods This cross-sectional study fielded a longitudinal adaptation of the WHO TB patient cost survey alongside an ACF intervention from March 2018 to March 2019. The study was conducted in six intervention (ACF) districts and six comparison (PCF) districts of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Fifty-two TB patients detected through ACF and 46 TB patients in the PCF cohort were surveyed within two weeks of treatment initiation, at the end of the intensive phase of treatment, and after treatment concluded. The survey measured income, direct and indirect costs, and socioeconomic impact based on which we calculated catastrophic cost as the primary outcome. Local currency was converted into US$ using the average exchange rates reported by OANDA for the study period (VNĐ1 = US$0.0000436, 2018–2019). We fitted logistic regressions for comparisons between the ACF and PCF cohorts as the primary exposures and used generalized estimating equations to adjust for autocorrelation. Results ACF patients were poorer than PCF patients (multidimensional poverty ratio: 16 % vs. 7 %; p = 0.033), but incurred lower median pre-treatment costs (US$18 vs. US$80; p < 0.001) and lower median total costs (US$279 vs. US$894; p < 0.001). Fewer ACF patients incurred catastrophic costs (15 % vs. 30 %) and had lower odds of catastrophic cost (aOR = 0.17; 95 % CI: [0.05, 0.67]; p = 0.011), especially during the intensive phase (OR = 0.32; 95 % CI: [0.12, 0.90]; p = 0.030). ACF patient experienced less social exclusion (OR = 0.41; 95 % CI: [0.18, 0.91]; p = 0.030), but more often resorted to financial coping mechanisms (OR = 5.12; 95 % CI: [1.73, 15.14]; p = 0.003). Conclusions ACF can be effective in reaching vulnerable populations and mitigating the socioeconomic burden of TB, and can contribute to achieving the WHO End TB Strategy goals. Nevertheless, as TB remains a catastrophic life event, social protection efforts must extend beyond ACF.

Medication nonadherence and patient cost responsibility for rural and urban cancer survivors.

4 Background: Little is known about the specific out-of-pocket costs which may lead to prescription nonadherence in older cancer survivors, and how patterns may differ for those living in rural areas. This study quantified patient costs overall and by residence for older cancer survivors who did and did not report cost-related prescription nonadherence. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Medicare claims, and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey linked data resource (SEER-CAHPS) from 2007-2015. Older cancer survivors self-reported cost-related prescription nonadherence in the prior six months. Patient cost responsibility (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments) was summed for all medical care received in the year prior to survey. Differences in patient cost responsibility by cost-related adherence was estimated using gamma generalized linear models adjusted for patient age, race, sex, education, dual Medicaid enrollment status, residence, comorbidity count, cancer type, stage, and phase of care. Models stratified by urban/rural residence as designated by Rural-Urban continuum codes assessed effect modification. Results: Of 11,829 older adult survivors of prostate (37%), breast (32%), colorectal (14%), gynecologic (10%), or lung (6%) cancer, 12% reported any cost-related prescription nonadherence in the prior year. Median age of survivors was 76 (interquartile range [IQR] 71-82), 15% had less than a high school degree, 59% had at least one non-cancer comorbidity, and 16% had ever been dual eligible. Prevalence of cost-related nonadherence was similar by patient characteristics. Median cost responsibility in the year prior to survey was $1,529 (IQR $744-$2,959) for patients reporting nonadherence and $1,123 (IQR $572-$2,362) for those reporting adherence. In adjusted models, patients reporting nonadherence had $656 higher patient cost responsibility in the year prior (95% CI $564-$760) compared to those reporting adherence. Approximately half of the difference in cost was outpatient spending (β = $277, 95% CI $210-$359). Differences in cost responsibility for patients reporting nonadherence compared to adherence were smaller for patients residing in rural areas (18% of respondents; β = $341, 95% CI $177-$564) compared to those residing in urban areas (82% of respondents; β = $715, 95% CI $613-$830). Conclusions: Compared to those reporting adherence, cost-related prescription nonadherence was associated with higher health care cost responsibility in cancer survivors. Furthermore, prescription adherence decisions may be more cost-sensitive for patients living in rural compared to urban areas. Interventions to address out-of-pocket health care costs, particularly for rural cancer survivors, could aid in increased prescription adherence and subsequent health outcomes.

170 Social and Environmental Benefits of Virtual Fracture Clinics in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery: Reduced Patient Travel Time, Patient Cost and Air Pollutant Emissions

Aim Several papers have analysed the clinical benefits and safety of Virtual Fracture Clinics (VFCs). A significant increase in the use of Trauma and Orthopaedic (T&O) VFCs was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to investigate the social impact of VFCs on the travel burden and travel costs of T&O patients, as well as the potential environmental benefits in relation to fuel consumption and travel-related pollutant emissions. Method All patients referred for T&O VFC review from March 2020 to June 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The travel burden and environmental impacts of hypothetical face-to-face consultations were compared with these VFC reviews. The primary outcomes measured were patient travel time saved, patient travel distance saved, patient cost savings and reduction in air-pollutant emissions. Results Over a four-month period, 1359 VFC consultations were conducted. The average travel distance saved by VFC review was 88.6 kilometres (range 3.3-615), with an average of 73 minutes (range 9-390) of travel-time saved. Patients consumed, on average, 8.2 litres (range 0.3-57.8) less fuel and saved an average of €11.02 (range 0.41-76.59). The average reduction in air-pollutant vehicle emissions, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxides and volatile organic compounds was 20.3 kilograms (range 0.8-140.8), 517.3 grams (g) (range 19.3-3592.3), 38.1g (range 1.4-264.8) and 56.9g (range 2.1-395.2), respectively. Conclusions VFCs reduce patient travel distance, travel time and travel costs. In addition, VFCs confer significant environmental benefits through reduced fuel consumption and reduction of harmful environmental emissions.

Cost savings associated with nutritional support in medical inpatients: an economic model based on data from a systematic review of randomised trials

Background and aimsNutritional support improves clinical outcomes during hospitalisation as well as after discharge. Recently, a systematic review of 27 randomised, controlled trials showed that nutritional support was associated with lower rates of hospital readmissions and improved survival. In the present economic modelling study, we sought to determine whether in-hospital nutritional support would also return economic benefits.MethodsThe current economic model applied cost estimates to the outcome results from our recent systematic review of hospitalised patients. In the underlying meta-analysis, a total of 27 trials (n=6803 patients) were included. To calculate the economic impact of nutritional support, a Markov model was developed using transitions between relevant health states. Costs were estimated accounting for length of stay in a general hospital ward, hospital-acquired infections, readmissions and nutritional support. Six-month mortality was also considered. The estimated daily per-patient cost for in-hospital nutrition was US$6.23.ResultsOverall costs of care within the model timeframe of 6 months averaged US$63 227 per patient in the intervention group versus US$66 045 in the control group, which corresponds to per patient cost savings of US$2818. These cost savings were mainly due to reduced infection rate and shorter lengths of stay. We also calculated the costs to prevent a hospital-acquired infection and a non-elective readmission, that is, US$820 and US$733, respectively. The incremental cost per life-day gained was −US$1149 with 2.53 additional days. The sensitivity analyses for cost per quality-adjusted life day provided support for the original findings.ConclusionsFor medical inpatients who are malnourished or at nutritional risk, our findings showed that in-hospital nutritional support is a cost-effective way to reduce risk for readmissions, lower the frequency of hospital-associated infections, and improve survival rates.

Temporal trends and variation in out-of-pocket expenditures and patient cost sharing: evidence from a Chinese national survey 2011–2015

Objectives This study aims to examine: (1) temporal trends in the percentage of cost-sharing and amount of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) from 2011 to 2015; (2) factors associated with cost-sharing and OOPE; and (3) the relationships between province-level economic development and cost-sharing and OOPE in China. Setting A total of 10,316 adults aged ≥45 years from China followed-up from 2011 to 2015 were included in the analysis. We measured two main outcome variables: (1) patient cost sharing, measured by the percentage of OOPE as total healthcare expenditure, and (2) absolute amount of OOPE. Results Based on self-reported data, we did not find substantial differences in the percentage of cost sharing, but a significant increase in the absolute amount of OOPE among the middle-aged and older Chinese between 2011 and 2015. The percentage of cost-sharing was considerably higher for outpatient than inpatient care, and the majority paid more than 80% of the total cost for prescription drugs. Provinces with higher GDP per capita tend to have lower cost-sharing and a higher OOPE than their counterparts, but the relationship for OOPE became insignificant after adjusting for individual factors. Conclusion Reducing out-of-pocket expenditure and patient cost sharing is required to improve financial protection from illness, especially for those with those with chronic conditions and reside in less developed regions in China. Ongoing monitoring of financial protection using data from various sources is warranted.