Dataset Information

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary care public hospital in Singapore: resources and economic costs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted hospitals to respond with stringent measures. Accurate estimates of costs and resources used in outbreaks can guide evaluations of responses. We report on the financial expenditure associated with COVID-19, the bed-days used for COVID-19 patients and hospital services displaced due to COVID-19 in a Singapore tertiary hospital.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from January to December 2020 in the largest public hospital in Singapore. Costs were estimated from the hospital perspective. We examined financial expenditures made in direct response to COVID-19; hospital admissions data related to COVID-19 inpatients; and the number of outpatient and emergency department visits, non-emergency surgeries, inpatient days in 2020, compared with preceding years of 2018 and 2019. Bayesian time-series was used to estimate the magnitude of displaced services.

Results

USD $41.96 million was incurred in the hospital for COVID-19-related expenses. Facilities set-up and capital assets accounted for 51.6% of the expenditure; patient-care supplies comprised 35.1%. Of the 19,611 inpatients tested for COVID-19 in 2020, 727 (3.7%) had COVID-19. The total inpatient- and intensive care unit (ICU)-days for COVID-19 patients in 2020 were 8009 and 8 days, respectively. A decline in all hospital services was observed from February following a raised disease outbreak alert level; most services quickly resumed when the lockdown was lifted in June.

Conclusion

COVID-19 led to an increase in healthcare expenses and a displacement in hospital services. Our findings are useful for informing economic evaluations of COVID-19 response and provide some information about the expected costs of future outbreaks.

SUBMITTER: Cai Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8664721 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To estimate the direct medical costs of advanced non-small cell lung cancer care.We assessed a cohort of 277 patients treated in the Brazilian National Cancer Institute in 2011. The costs were estimated from the perspective of the hospital as a service provider of reference for the Brazilian Unified Health System. The materials and procedures used were identified and quantified, per patient, and we assigned to them monetary values, consolidated in phases of the assistance defined. The analyses had a descriptive character with costs in Real (R$).Overall, the cohort represented a cost of R$2,473,559.91, being 71.5% related to outpatient care and 28.5% to hospitalizations. In the outpatient care, costs with radiotherapy (34%) and chemotherapy (22%) predominated. The results pointed to lower costs in the initial phase of treatment (7.2%) and very high costs in the maintenance phase (61.6%). Finally, we identified statistically significant differences of average cost by age groups, education levels, physical performance, and histological type.This study provides a current, useful, and relevant picture of the costs of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated in a public hospital of reference and it provides information on the magnitude of the problem of cancer in the context of public health. The results confirm the importance of radiation treatment and hospitalizations as the main components of the cost of treatment. Despite some losses of follow-up, we assess that, for approximately 80% of the patients included in the study, the estimates presented herein are satisfactory for the care of the disease, from the perspective of a service provider of reference of the Brazilian Unified Health System, as it provides elements for the management of the service, as well as for studies that result in more rational forms of resource allocation.Estimar os custos médicos diretos da assistência ao câncer de pulmão não pequenas células avançado.Foi avaliada uma coorte de 277 pacientes matriculados no Instituto Nacional do Câncer em 2011. Os custos foram estimados sob a perspectiva do hospital como prestador de serviços de referência para o SUS. Insumos e procedimentos utilizados foram identificados e quantificados, por paciente, sendo a eles atribuídos valores monetários, consolidados por fases da assistência definidas. As análises tiveram caráter descritivo com custos em reais (R$).Em termos globais, a coorte representou um custo de R$2.473.559,91, sendo 71,5% relacionados à atenção ambulatorial e 28,5% as internações. Na atenção ambulatorial, predominaram os custos com radioterapia (34%) e quimioterapia (22%). Os resultados apontaram para custos menores na fase inicial de tratamento (7,2%) e custos muito elevados na fase de manutenção (61,6%). Por fim, identificaram-se diferenças estatisticamente significativas das médias dos custos por faixas etárias, níveis de escolaridade, desempenho físico e tipo histológico.Este estudo fornece um retrato atual, útil e relevante sobre os custos de pacientes com câncer de pulmão não pequenas células assistidos em um hospital público de referência e provê elementos sobre a magnitude do problema do câncer no âmbito da saúde pública. Os resultados ratificam a importância do tratamento radioterápico e das internações como principais componentes de custo do tratamento. Apesar de algumas perdas de seguimento avalia-se que, para cerca de 80% dos pacientes incluídos no estudo, as estimativas aqui apresentadas sejam satisfatoriamente fidedignas ao cuidado da doença, sob a perspectiva de um prestador de referência do SUS, fornecendo elementos para a gestão do serviço, bem como para estudos que redundem em formas mais racionais de alocação de recursos.

Project description:Covid-19 has adversely impacted the health care organizations by over burdening with Covid patients and suspending the elective surgeries and clinics. Hospitalization during pandemic may increase health cost of patients for elective and emergency procedure due to extra cost of covid testing and isolation. A single center retrospective study was conducted to quantify losses due to postponement of elective surgeries and extra cost for procurement of PPEs. The secondary objective was to see the effect of Covid -19 on the total costs of inpatient care during Covid era.Patient and methodWe included all the patients admitted in orthopedic section for operative intervention of fractures and elective procedures from January 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020. We divided this period into two halves; the first half was from January first to March 15 named as PreCovid Era and second half was from March 16, to May 31, 2020, termed as Covid Era. The total number of trauma procedures and elective procedures were compared in both eras. We compared six procedures each from upper and lower limit for cost analysis and length of stay. We also analyzed the extra cost for procurement of PPEs.ResultsA total 625 patients were admitted during study period; 417 in precovid and 208 in covid era. There was 50% reduction in patients admissions during Covid era. There was no statistically significant difference in age and gender of both groups. A total of 840 (591in preCovid era and 251 in Covid era) procedures were performed on these 625 patients. Elective and emergency procedures were significantly reduced in Covid era. There was 55.7% drop in the collective revenue generated in covid era as compared to that of Precovid era. The average length of stay was decreased in Covid era. No statistically significance difference was found in inpatient hospital charges of both groups except for two procedures ankle and proximal humeral fractures; that was significantly reduced in Covid era. There was significantly increase in use of PPE in covid era.ConclusionThe financial income of our service decreased more than 55% due to postponement of elective work. The number of elective and procedures related to musculoskeletal trauma also decreased. The cost for inpatient care did not increase during covid era. There was significant reduction in inpatient hospital stay during covid era. The hospital management had to spent additional expenses on procurement of PPEs.

Project description:IntroductionThe dementia experience is not a monolithic phenomenon-and while core elements of dementia are considered universal-people living with dementia experience the disorder differently. Understanding the patterning of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in the population with regards to incidence, risk factors, impacts on dementia care, and economic costs associated with ADRD can provide clues to target risk and protective factors for all populations as well as addressing health disparities.MethodsWe discuss information presented at the 2020 National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons with Dementia and Their Caregivers, Theme 1: Impact of Dementia. In this article, we describe select population trends, care interventions, and economic impacts, health disparities and implications for future research from the perspective of our diverse panel comprised of academic stakeholders, and persons living with dementia, and care partners.ResultsDementia incidence is decreasing yet the advances in population health are uneven. Studies examining the educational, geographic and race/ethnic distribution of ADRD have identified clear disparities. Disparities in health and healthcare may be amplified by significant gaps in the evidence base for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The economic costs for persons living with dementia and the value of family care partners' time are high, and may persist into future generations.ConclusionsSignificant research gaps remain. Ensuring that ADRD healthcare services and long-term care services and supports are accessible, affordable, and effective for all segments of our population is essential for health equity. Policy-level interventions are in short supply to redress broad unmet needs and systemic sources of disparities. Whole of society challenges demand research producing whole of society solutions. The urgency, complexity, and scale merit a "whole of government" approach involving collaboration across numerous federal agencies.

Project description:BACKGROUND: All influenza pandemic plans advocate pandemic vaccination. However, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different vaccination strategies. This paper compares the economic outcomes of vaccination compared with treatment with antiviral agents alone, in Singapore. METHODOLOGY: We analyzed the economic outcomes of pandemic vaccination (immediate vaccination and vaccine stockpiling) compared with treatment-only in Singapore using a decision-based model to perform cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. We also explored the annual insurance premium (willingness to pay) depending on the perceived risk of the next pandemic occurring. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The treatment-only strategy resulted in 690 deaths, 13,950 hospitalization days, and economic cost of USD$497 million. For immediate vaccination, at vaccine effectiveness of >55%, vaccination was cost-beneficial over treatment-only. Vaccine stockpiling is not cost-effective in most scenarios even with 100% vaccine effectiveness. The annual insurance premium was highest with immediate vaccination, and was lower with increased duration to the next pandemic. The premium was also higher with higher vaccine effectiveness, attack rates, and case-fatality rates. Stockpiling with case-fatality rates of 0.4-0.6% would be cost-beneficial if vaccine effectiveness was >80%; while at case-fatality of >5% stockpiling would be cost-beneficial even if vaccine effectiveness was 20%. High-risk sub-groups warrant higher premiums than low-risk sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: The actual pandemic vaccine effectiveness and lead time is unknown. Vaccine strategy should be based on perception of severity. Immediate vaccination is most cost-effective, but requires vaccines to be available when required. Vaccine stockpiling as insurance against worst-case scenarios is also cost-effective. Research and development is therefore critical to develop and stockpile cheap, readily available effective vaccines.