Search

There are concerns about the potential effect of social distancing used to control COVID-19 on the incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Retrospective cohort study. We examined the association between lockdown and CVD incidence in a Zero-COVID country, New Caledonia. Inclusion criteria were defined by a positive troponin sample during hospitalization. The study period lasted for 2 months, starting March 20, 2020 (strict lockdown: first month; loose lockdown: second month) compared with the same period of the three previous years to calculate incidence ratio (IR). Demographic characteristics and main CVD diagnoses were collected. The primary endpoint was the change in incidence of hospital admission with CVD during lockdown compared with the historical counterpart. The secondary endpoint included influence of strict lockdown, change in incidence of the primary endpoint by disease, and outcome incidences (intubation or death) analyzed with inverse probability weighting method. A total of 1215 patients were included: 264 in 2020 vs 317 (average of the historical period). CVD hospitalizations were reduced during strict lockdown (IR 0.71 [0.58–0.88]), but not during loose lockdown (IR 0.94 [0.78–1.12]). The incidence of acute coronary syndromes was similar in both periods. The incidence of acute decompensated heart failure was reduced during strict lockdown (IR 0.42 [0.24–0.73]), followed by a rebound (IR 1.42 [1–1.98]). There was no association between lockdown and short-term outcomes. Our study showed that lockdown was associated with a striking reduction in CVD hospitalizations, independently from viral spread, and a rebound of acute decompensated heart failure hospitalizations during looser lockdown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We adopted a difference-in-difference (DID) design to evaluate the impact of a case-based payment pilot in Tianjin, China on hospital admission, utilization of varied therapeutic regimes, and the associated costs. We used claim data of all admissions of angina and acute myocardial infarction during July 2015 to June 2018, 18 months before and after the program. Our analyses were supported by convincing common trends tests and a couple of sensitivity analyses. As intended, for patients who received percutaneous coronary stenting (PCS) and were counted in the case-based payment system, we showed that the program decreased length-of-stay, per-admission spending, and out-of-pocket spending by 20.8%, 14.2%, and 95.5%, respectively, but did not increase readmissions. However, when considering all patients who suffered from the two types of coronary heart diseases, we found that the program otherwise increased per-admission spending by nearly 11%. As a result, the program took a perverse effect in increasing monthly spending for the health insurance scheme and the society by 1005.6 thousand USD (47·5%) and 1095·7 thousand USD (34·7%), respectively. Increases in hospital admissions, and proportion of performing PCS accounted for 66·7% and 39·2% of the rise, respectively. In addition, our analysis provided evidence of health providers' cream-skimming behaviors, including selecting younger patients with lower CCI in the case-based system, up-coding complications, and keeping higher cost patients in the fee-for-service payment system. We draw lessons that case-based payment may make an unintended impact that increases healthcare costs when incentives are not properly designed. • The case-based payment pilot decreased per-admission costs for case-mixes included. • For the specific diseases, the program however increased per-admission spending. • Admissions receiving high cost therapeutic regimes accounted for the rise. • The program decreased LOS and OOP costs but did not increase readmissions. • Patient selection and up-coding were profound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]