Search

Background: Oral challenges and desensitizations are regularly performed by allergy/immunology physicians. However, there is limited research that has evaluated their cost-effectiveness and overall health-care—related value. Objective: The objective was to analyze the costs of oral challenges and desensitizations by clinician type (including allergy/immunology physicians, other physicians, and certified registered nurse practitioners ICRNP.1 and physician assistants [PAM and by geographic distribution in the United States. Methods: By using a de-identified commercial database of medical encounters, we identified all claims for outpatient oral challenges and desensitizations in 2017 and grouped them separately by clinician type and by U.S. Census region. We used analysis of variance to test for cost differences between these two groupings. Results: Allergy/immunology physicians performed the majority of oral challenges (74.36%) with a mean cost of $161, significantly less than that of other physicians ($280). Allergy/itnmunology physicians also performed the majority of desensitizations (84.48%) with a mean cost of $335, significantly higher than that of CRNPs/PAs ($280); other physicians were reimbursed significantly more than both groups ($410). By geographic region, the mean costs of oral challenges in the Northeast ($212) and the West ($210) were significantly higher than those of other regions, whereas the mean cost of desensitizations was significantly highest in the West ($381). Conclusion: Allergy/immunology physicians and CRNPs/PAs cost the least with respect to oral challenges, whereas CRNPs/PAs cost the least with respect to desensitizations. The Northeast and the West regions provided the highest cost for oral challenges, whereas the West was most expensive in terms of desensitizations. Further knowledge and examination of these reimbursement patterns are crucial in understanding their relative value and the impact on delivery of high-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) assesses shortcomings and unmet needs in wound care by partnering with key stakeholders, such as the National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), industry leaders, and expert health care providers and researchers, to advance the study of wound healing. Through this work, the WCCC has identified a few key barriers to innovation in wound care. The WCCC aims to accelerate the development of science-based, patient-centered solutions and address public policy challenges related to ensuring patients receive early access to innovative treatment options., Objective: To develop consensus recommendations that would address current deficiencies in wound care and promote improved innovation and patient access with an expert panel discussion based on both the work conducted within the WCCC and the existing evidence. These recommendations include the voices of the at-large, US-based wound care community., Methods: In May 2024, a multi-panel summit with 65 leading voices in clinical practice, academia, industry, and the FDA convened in person in Orlando, Florida. Thirty-two participants with backgrounds in clinical practice, surgery, industry, academia, and research took part in panel discussions. Following the panel meeting, the group corresponded via email and a formal survey process to create consensus recommendations, with the ultimate goal of identifying and overcoming barriers to innovation in wound care., Results: A total of 32 experts convened during the 1-day summit, each representing key stakeholders. Five panel discussions took place to discuss the obstacles to innovation, including alternative primary and co-primary endpoints, generating and reporting evidence, real-world evidence in policy decision-making, and the appropriate standard of care in wound management. From these discussions, 12 consensus statements were generated. The statements, their proportion of agreement or disagreement, and summary comments are presented in the order they appeared at the presentation. Overall, greater than or equal to 85% agreement was received on all statements., Conclusion: The consensus recommendations promote and encourage a standardized path forward to established, consistent metrics that facilitate innovation and quality assessment, improving patient access to advancements in healing.

Sleep-related infant deaths, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), are the number one cause of death in infants between 28 days and one year of life. Nearly half of families experiencing a sleep-related infant death in Kansas were involved with the Department of Children and Families Child Protective Services (CPS), making CPS staff a priority for safe sleep training. This study assessed the impact of the two-day Kansas Infant Death and SIDS (KIDS) Network Safe Sleep Instructor (SSI) train-the-trainer program on CPS staffs' knowledge of the American Academy of Pediatrics safe sleep recommendations. Training was attended by 43 participants, 27 (63%) of whom were employed by CPS. CPS staff had significantly lower baseline knowledge on the 10-item pretest ( t = 3.33, p = 0.002), but both CPS and other attendees showed significant improvement by posttest ( t = 8.53, p < 0.001 and t = 4.44, p < 0.001, respectively). Following SSI certification, CPS SSIs provided more safe sleep training to professionals than other SSIs (1051 vs. 165, respectively), and both groups of SSIs were able to significantly increase the knowledge of their trainees. Overall, the KIDS Network SSI training was successful. The innovative partnership with CPS allowed for provision of training to a group not historically targeted for safe sleep education.