Journal of Medical Economics

Background/Objectives: Older adults are at high risk of influenza-related severe disease and complications. HD-IIV, currently recommended for adults [≥]65 years, is egg-based and may be subject to egg-adapted mutations. An mRNA-based vaccine for influenza, mRNA-1010, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Given the clinical benefits observed in mRNA-1010 clinical trials and potential to avoid egg-adapted mutations, this analysis explores the clinical impact of mRNA-1010 compared to HD-IIV in those [≥]65 years in the United States. Methods: This study used a decision-analytic model of influenza infection and downstream outcomes to project influenza burden with each vaccine over a one-year timeframe. Vaccine coverage, HD-IIV vaccine effectiveness (VE) and influenza epidemiology was estimated based upon Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. The relative VE (rVE) for mRNA-1010 vs. HD-IIV was modelled based on data from the clinical trial and published literature on the impact of egg adaptation. Results: The base-case analysis suggests mRNA-1010 may prevent an additional 232,200 symptomatic influenza infections, 130,000 outpatient cases, 21,100 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 2,200 influenza-related deaths compared to HD-IIV. The number needed to vaccination to prevent one hospitalization was 514 or mRNA-1010 vs no vaccine and 404 for HD-IIV versus no vaccine, for an incremental NNV of 110. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses results indicate that clinical outcomes prevented by mRNA-1010 are most sensitive to influenza incidence and VE. Conclusions: mRNA-1010 may improve protection against influenza in US adults aged [≥]65 years, leading to meaningful reductions in the clinical influenza-related disease burden in older adults.

Multi-Cancer Detection (MCD) tests can detect more than 50 different types of cancer using a blood test. Recently passed law in the U.S. guarantees that Medicare will pay for these tests when they are FDA approved and show evidence for clinical benefit. This manuscript provides estimates of the cost of MCD tests to Medicare under different assumptions of cost per test, eligibility, and screening uptake in the eligible population. This manuscript additionally estimates the cost of follow-up testing resulting from false positive results, which are considered avoidable costs caused by the screening test.

Introduction Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of respiratory disease in older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions, contributing substantially to the healthcare burden in Italy. The availability of effective RSV vaccines provides an opportunity to reduce RSV-related morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in populations at high risk of severe disease. This study evaluates the potential public health impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination using mRNA-1345 administered as a single dose compared with no vaccination in Italian high-risk adults aged 60-74 years and all adults aged [≥]75 years. Methods A static decision-analytic model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes over a 5-year time horizon. Economic outcomes were evaluated from the Italian National Health Service (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, SSN) perspective. Model inputs were informed by the most recent Italian epidemiological, clinical, and economic evidence, supplemented by published international data when necessary. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs and assumptions on the study results. Results Vaccination with mRNA-1345 in high-risk adults aged 60-74 years and all adults aged [≥]75 years was projected to avert over 19,800 hospitalizations, 4,000 emergency department visits, 381,000 outpatient visits, 6,000 RSV-attributable deaths, and 212,000 antibiotic prescriptions compared with no vaccination over a 5-year period. The total incremental cost of {euro}1,143 million and the additional 47,477 QALYs gained resulted in an ICER of {euro}24,078, which was below the commonly referenced willingness to-pay range of {euro}33,000-40,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the analysis results. Conclusions Vaccination with mRNA-1345 is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of RSV in high-risk adults aged 60-74 years and all adults [≥]75 years in Italy and has the potential to provide substantial public health benefits.

Abstract Introduction: Daraxonrasib is the first broad RAS-targeted medicine approved for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In RASolute 302, it approximately doubled median overall survival in the prespecified RAS G12 population. The US wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) is $39,800 per 30-day supply. Contemporary oncology launch prices have risen substantially, and many recently launched drugs have been priced above value-based benchmarks. The value of a genuinely transformative oncology therapy at this price is uncertain. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of daraxonrasib compared with investigators-choice chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma using publicly available clinical and economic data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model informed by the international randomized phase 3 RASolute 302 trial. Published Kaplan-Meier curves and numbers at risk were used to reconstruct pseudo-individual patient data. The RAS G12 population (n=459), corresponding to the trials dual primary efficacy end points, was the primary economic population; the overall randomized population (n=500) was analyzed in parallel. Analyses were conducted in 2026 from a US health sector perspective. Exposures: Daraxonrasib 300 mg orally once daily versus investigators-choice chemotherapy, weighted to the observed trial regimen distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and the 30-day daraxonrasib price consistent with willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, and $255,000/QALY. Costs were expressed in 2026 US dollars and discounted at 3% annually. Results: In the RAS G12 population, daraxonrasib generated 0.652 additional life-years and 0.506 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $253,171, yielding an ICER of $500,637/QALY. The corresponding overall-population ICER was $542,255/QALY. A 10-year horizon changed the RAS G12 ICER to $497,270/QALY; using curve-specific distributions selected by Akaike information criterion produced $493,895/QALY. In 5000 probabilistic simulations, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0% at $150,000 and $200,000/QALY and 0.1% at $255,000/QALY. Threshold prices in the RAS G12 population were $14,060 per 30 days at $150,000/QALY and $17,730 at $200,000/QALY, reductions of 64.7% and 55.5% from WAC. An independent secondary implementation using separately digitized survival curves and piecewise-exponential extrapolation produced a higher ICER; after calibrating drug exposure to observed treatment duration, the estimate remained approximately $676,000/QALY, with most of the difference attributable to the extrapolated treatment-exposure tail. Conclusions and Relevance: Daraxonrasib nearly doubled median overall survival in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, in which median survival with standard chemotherapy was about 7 months, and should remain available to eligible patients. At WAC, daraxonrasib costs approximately $500,000 per QALY, well above conventional US benchmarks. Because actual net acquisition prices may reflect confidential discounts or rebates, the ICER based on WAC may exceed the ICER at the net price. Threshold list prices consistent with $150,000-$200,000/QALY were $14,060-$17,730 per 30 days (a 55%-65% reduction from WAC), offered as reference points for pricing and coverage discussions rather than recommended prices.

Across 30 US states and the District of Columbia, eliminating the AIDS Drug Assistance Program is projected to save $6.45 billion in direct costs while generating $14.89 billion in downstream HIV care costs attributable to excess incident infections from 2026-2035. Costs are projected to surpass savings within six years.

Background: While health system costs of COVID-19 are well documented, evidence on out-of-pocket costs to patients and families, including non-medical and time burden, is limited. This study aimed to estimate out-of-pocket medical, non-medical, and time burden of COVID-19 illness directly from patients and caregivers. Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys were fielded to national nonprobability samples of U.S. adults in Fall 2023: a personal burden survey (adult sample) and a caregiver burden survey (child sample). Surveys collected data on care setting, visit duration including travel and wait time, and medical and non-medical out-of-pocket costs. After applying quality-based exclusion criteria, 409 adult sample and 52 child sample responses were analyzed. Results: Over 87% of respondents were insured. Median out-of-pocket medical costs per visit were low, ranging from $5 (emergency department) to $10 (urgent care) in the adult sample, and from $0 (emergency department) to $75 (hospitalization) in the child sample. Median non-medical costs were $28 or less across care settings. Median time spent receiving care ranged from 90 minutes (primary care, child sample) to 300 minutes (emergency department, adult sample). Despite the relatively low reported out-of-pocket costs, COVID-related financial challenges were reported by 34% of the adult sample and 29% of the child sample, with the most common difficulty being paying non-medical bills (11% and 15%, respectively). Twelve percent in both groups reported problems paying COVID-19-related medical bills. Conclusions: In this post-pandemic non-probability sample, individual out-of-pocket costs for COVID-19 illness were relatively modest. However, time burden was substantial and one-third of respondents reported financial hardship. These estimates, including non-medical and time burden not captured in administrative data, can support more robust economic evaluations of COVID-19 prevention and treatment interventions.

Abstract Background Estimates of the healthcare costs associated with influenza treatment are essential for cost-effectiveness analyses that inform preventative and treatment strategies such as vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Existing evidence varies across treatment settings, age groups, and countries and there is little data from low- and middle-income settings. Methods We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting direct admitted and non-admitted hospitalisation costs of seasonal influenza treatment in children, adults, and older people. We supplemented an evidence gap with a systematised review of studies reporting adult non-admitted treatment costs. Costs were extracted and adjusted to 2023 USD. We fitted a Bayesian mixed-effects model to estimate influenza treatment costs using national economic indicators, age group, and treatment setting as a priori predictors. We predicted admitted and non-admitted treatment costs for children, adults, and older people in 195 countries and territories. Results Seven reviews were included in the umbrella review, supplemented by 17 primary studies for adult non-admitted care. Extracted data points most frequently described admitted treatment costs and came from high-income countries. The best-fitting model used healthcare expenditure per capita to predict treatment costs, with country-level random effects. Estimated costs increased with healthcare expenditure per capita, were higher for admitted than non-admitted care, and were highest for adults and lowest for children. Conclusions This study provides novel estimates of influenza-associated healthcare costs across age groups and treatment settings by synthesising the available global evidence. By extrapolating to settings without data, our estimates can inform future economic evaluation studies of influenza interventions worldwide.

Importance: The 2026 public charge rule could discourage immigrants from accessing health coverage programs, creating a chilling effect that potentially leads to negative health outcomes; However, its long-term health impact is poorly understood. Objective: To model potential impacts of the 2026 public charge rule on primary care and premature mortality among immigrants in New York City (NYC). Design, Setting, and Participants: The simulation used a deterministic compartmental model with Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) using 2023 NYC Vital statistics data and American Community Survey, and estimates obtained from 2 previous studies about effects of healthcare access on primary care and Medicaid expansion on premature mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of primary care outcomes (access, doctor's visits) in 5 years, and premature mortality in 5 and 20 years, projected by the model under conservative, moderate, and aggressive scenarios of avoidance/disenrollment due to the public charge rule, known as the 'chilling effect'. Effects of the avoidance/disenrollment on primary care outcomes and premature mortality were obtained from 2 previous studies. Projected rates of the outcomes under each scenario were compared with counterfactuals to estimate the health impacts of the chilling effect. Results: Implementation of the public charge rule was projected to decrease the primary care access rate by 4.1% (conservative) to 9.9% (aggressive) over 5 years, relative to the counterfactual scenario without the rule. The rate of doctors' visits was projected to decrease over 5 years by 5.1% (conservative) to 12.2% (aggressive). Premature mortality was projected to increase by 4.4% (conservative) to 10.6% (aggressive) in 5 years and 7.4% (conservative) to 17.4% (aggressive) in 20 years. Legal noncitizens and Black immigrant New Yorkers were predicted to experience higher burdens of premature mortality attributed to the chilling effect, compared with other immigrant groups and racial/ethnic groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates adverse health consequences of federal public charge rule changes among immigrants in NYC. The model projected a decrease in primary care visits and increase in premature mortality across various scenarios. These findings suggest urgent reconsideration of a regulatory change that disproportionately increases risk of premature mortality among immigrants in NYC.

Introduction: Maternal morbidity and mortality in the US disproportionately affect some women, including the Medicaid-insured, rural, and Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations. The drivers of disparities are complex and there is an urgent need for multilevel interventions focused on pregnancy-related and associated morbidity and mortality (PRAMM). This study will be the first large-scale test of Community Health Worker (CHW) inclusive home visiting and provider/practice/system level improvement strategies that support empowered patients, pro-active providers, and integrates community and clinical care designed to reduce PRAMM and disparities among women who are disproportionately affected. Methods and analysis: The primary study outcome will be rates of PRAMM - a composite outcome including pregnancy-associated and pregnancy-related morbidity, severe maternal morbidity, and mortality - and disparities among women disproportionately affected. A quasi-experimental, stepped wedge design will be used. Participants will be Medicaid-insured women in three Michigan counties observed during pregnancy, at birth, and up to one year postpartum, who give birth between 2021-2028 (>101,000 births). Individual health outcomes will be assessed at three steps of the stepped-wedge design. Analyses will use a statewide linked data system including all Medicaid birth and death records, Medicaid claims, and other program data. In the context of Michigan extending pregnancy-related Medicaid, the study will evaluate the impact of the proposed multilevel intervention vs. usual care from early pregnancy through 12 months postpartum. The study was developed with full community engagement and participation including shared leadership with academic and community-based Principal Investigators representing intervention communities. Ethics and dissemination: An Institutional Review Board determined the study exempt from the human subject's regulations, for the following reasons. Two of the three intervention components will not interact with human subjects to collect data - we will only rely on secondary research using data or biospecimens not collected specifically for this study, and the data will be provided without identifiable information by someone without any role in this research study except providing the data. The third intervention component, medical provider surveys, is a benign behavioral intervention where information will be recorded using methods that prevent subjects' identities from being readily ascertained. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals following EQUATOR guidelines.

BACKGROUND Extensive research has documented medication abortion safety. Large-scale insurance claims data offer an important complement to clinical studies by assessing real-world outcomes in routine practice. In claims data, researchers must infer mifepristone use, clinical outcomes, and event severity from diagnosis, treatment, and utilization codes. Understanding how these analytic choices influence safety and effectiveness estimates is important for interpreting evidence used to inform care delivery and medication policy. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of mifepristone use with national multipayer claims data, both medical and pharmacy, from 2017 through 2023. We identified both a broad cohort and a more specific medication-abortion cohort after excluding evidence of other indications. We classified potential safety events, effectiveness outcomes, and health care utilization within 45 days of mifepristone use. Serious adverse events required claims-observable consequences consistent with FDA seriousness criteria. RESULTS The broad cohort included 869,409 mifepristone uses among 698,780 unique patients for medication abortion or other indications. After restriction to uses with additional evidence of medication abortion, 775,931 uses among 626,443 unique patients remained. In the medication-abortion cohort, 3,306 uses were followed by at least one serious adverse event, resulting in an absolute 45-day risk of 0.43%. Serious bleeding or hemorrhage occurred after 0.24% of uses, serious infection or sepsis after 0.05%, serious hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis after 0.01%, and serious ectopic-pregnancy outcomes after 0.05%. CONCLUSIONS Serious adverse events after mifepristone use were rare in this national study. Applying established, clinically grounded criteria markedly reduced the number of events classified as serious.

Background: Non-medically attended (NMA) and outpatient medically attended (MA) influenza illnesses contribute substantially to influenza disease burden in the United States. We leveraged a household study to estimate out-of-pocket and lost productivity costs of NMA and MA influenza illness. Methods: The Respiratory Virus Transmission Network for Influenza was a 2024-2025 case-ascertained household study at 3 U.S. sites. Influenza-positive index patients and household contacts self-reported daily symptoms, over-the-counter (OTC) medication use, medical care-seeking, time missed from work or activities, and self-collected nasal swabs for PCR testing. We included participants with PCR-confirmed influenza infection and influenza-like-illness symptoms who ever (MA) or never (NMA) sought medical care during follow-up. We obtained costs of OTC medications from retail websites and productivity costs from published values. We calculated OTC medication and lost productivity costs in 2025 USD for MA and NMA influenza separately and household-level lost productivity costs among caregivers for MA and NMA household members. Results: Median out-of-pocket OTC medication costs were $6.38 (interquartile range [IQR] $2.92-$11.60) among 594 MA and $3.72 (IQR $1.50-$7.05) among 153 NMA influenza illnesses. Among participants [≥]15 years of age, median lost productivity was $315 ($149-$743) for MA and $248 ($0-$624) for NMA illnesses. Median household-level lost productivity for caregiving was $148 (households with 1 ill child), $379 (multiple ill children), and $0 ([≥]1 ill adult). Conclusions: Influenza causes substantial lost productivity costs within households. These estimates can inform future economic burden and cost effectiveness analyses.

Improving primary care is a long-standing strategy to constrain health care spending. Yet, evaluations of primary care models focused on payment reform have shown minimal effects on total cost of care. We report the results from a large-scale, real-world evaluation of an advanced primary care model that restructures access through same-day and next-day appointments, on-demand video visits, asynchronous clinician messaging, and extended hours. Using a stacked-cohort difference-in-differences design with entropy balancing and inverse probability of censoring weighting, we analyzed multi-payer claims covering April 2022 through March 2025. Advanced primary care use was associated with an 8.6% reduction in total cost of care (-$729 per patient per year; P = 0.004), driven by lower specialist cost (-$939/year; P < 0.001) and, to a lesser degree, by reductions in inpatient (-$134/year; P < 0.001), urgent care (-$70/year; P < 0.001), and emergency department cost (-$16/year; P = 0.02), partially offset by higher primary care cost (+$350/year; P < 0.001). The specialist reduction was concentrated in knowledge-based consultative encounters (-$663/year; P < 0.001), while procedural specialist cost was largely unchanged (-$276/year; P = 0.09). Cost differences emerged in the first post-index month. These findings suggest that advanced primary care may reduce total health care spending, with observed savings driven primarily by lower spending on consultative specialty care.

Objective: This study estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) against culture-confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalizations among adults using a test-negative case-control design. Methods: We included adults ([&ge;]18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System between January 2023 and December 2025 who had respiratory cultures collected. VE was estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, risk group, and U.S. census region. Sensitivity analyses included inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and evaluation allowing previous PCV13 vaccination. Results: Among 34,009 pneumonia hospitalizations, 837 (2.5%) were Streptococcus pneumoniae culture-positive and 7,428 (21.8%) individuals had received PCV20. PCV20 vaccination was associated with lower odds of culture-confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalization among adults aged [&ge;]65 years (VE 20.4%; 95% CI: 2.1%, 35.3%), with greater effectiveness observed among those with chronic medical conditions (VE 24.4%; 95% CI: 0.7%, 42.4%). VE was highest in the Western region among adults aged [&ge;]65 years (39.6%; 95% CI: 3.2%, 62.3%), a region with a high burden of serotype 4 disease. Overall, VE among adults aged [&ge;]18 years was 8.8% (95% CI: -8.8%, 23.6%). Findings were consistent across multivariable and IPTW-adjusted analyses. Conclusion: PCV20 provided significant protection against pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalizations among older adults, with greater effectiveness in regions where vaccine-covered serotypes are more prevalent. These findings support the importance of aligning pneumococcal vaccination strategies with regional serotype distribution to maximize vaccine impact.

FeePredict is a three-stage random forest machine learning framework to simul-taneously predict whether Medicare reimbursement rates for specific procedures will change, in which direction they will change, and by how much. FeePredict was ap-plied to the four major Medicare fee schedules: the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS), the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), the Ambulance Fee Schedule (AFS), and the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) fee schedule. Each of these fee schedules contains publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the years 2024, 2025, and 2026, with the number of procedures represented in the data ranging from 3,264 to 2,952,842 observations.FeePredict utilizes lag-1 feature engineering and train-only preprocessing steps to ensure that there is no data leakage into the model. Chronological out-of-time valida-tion was performed on three of the four fee schedules to determine the generalizability of the model over time. FeePredict significantly outperformed the assumption that there would be no changes to Medicare reimbursement rates for procedures (p < 0.001), achieving concordance indices between 0.815 and 0.998, and reducing the mean abso-lute error for predicting changes to reimbursement rates by 29% to 85%. Permutation testing of the model with shuffled reimbursement rate labels indi-cates that there is no evidence of data leakage (AUC values: 0.467-0.515). The model achieved concordance indices of 0.854 and 0.972 for the CLFS and DMEPOS fee sched-ules, respectively, outside of its training period, but performed less well outside of its training period for the PFS, indicating that it generalizes less well to changes to the Medicare policy regime that existed after its training period. Overall, though, these re-sults indicate that it is possible to accurately predict whether Medicare reimbursement rates for medical procedures will change using only data from the historical versions of those fee schedules.

Importance: With a recent shift towards summer seasonal predominance of COVID-19 across much of the US, debate continues over optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategies regarding timing (including summer vaccination), eligibility, and dosing frequency. We evaluated the population-level impact of alternative vaccine strategies to inform US and state vaccine policy. Objective: To compare reductions in COVID-19 hospitalizations under different vaccination timing, eligibility, and dosing frequency. Design: Decision analytical model using a stochastic individual-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to US COVID-19 hospitalization incidence from May 2024-April 2025. Setting: Simulated US national population, with additional scenarios representing state-level seasonal patterns. Participants: Simulated population of 5 million individuals with US age structure, stratified by risk group (immunocompetent, high risk with comorbid conditions, or immunocompromised). Exposures: Vaccination timing, universal or age- and risk-based eligibility, and dosing frequency, including a hybrid strategy of universal annual vaccination with a second dose for adults [&ge;]65 years and immunocompromised adults (US vaccine policy during the study period). Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 hospitalization risk per 100,000 persons by age-risk group, measured among vaccinated individuals and in the total population. Results: If summer COVID-19 vaccination timing is feasible, annual universal vaccination in July minimized risk (441 [95% UI: 423-463] COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100,000 persons among adults [&ge;]65 years) compared to a counterfactual scenario with no additional vaccination given during the study period (578 [553-601]). If timing does not change, hybrid vaccination minimized risk, followed by semiannual risk-based vaccination (460 [440-487] and 477 [454-499] hospitalizations per 100,000 in adults [&ge;]65 years, respectively). The advantage of summer timing diminished if vaccine coverage decreased by 5-10 absolute percentage points (25-50% relative decrease). The magnitude of benefit from summer-timed vaccination and semiannual doses in the highest-risk groups varied regionally. Conclusions and Relevance: Although annual COVID-19 vaccination has historically been timed for winter transmission, summer vaccination may avert more hospitalizations if coverage is maintained, especially in states with predominantly summer transmission including Western and Southern states. The comparative impact of vaccination strategies, especially the benefit of a semiannual dose in the highest-risk groups, may vary regionally. COVID-19 vaccination timing and eligibility may warrant reconsideration.

To evaluate the cost-utility and 5-year budget impact of first-line olaparib plus abiraterone versus abiraterone alone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in China after the eleventh round of volume-based procurement (VBP). The intention-to-treat (ITT) population was assigned primary decision-analytic weight; the prespecified BRCA1/2-mutated (BRCAm) subgroup was a supporting analysis.

Drug shortages represent persistent supply disruptions in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, threatening patient access and increasing drug costs. Prior research commonly treats shortages as binary events and relies on static designs, limiting insight into how shortage characteristics drive cost escalation. This study uncovers the heterogeneity behind drug shortages and pharmacy acquisition costs of generic non-injectable drugs. FDA drug shortage records with weekly National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) prices were fit with fixed-effects models, duration-specific models, and a double machine-learning framework to characterize heterogeneity in shortage-price associations by duration, market structure, and shortage reasons. In the baseline two-way fixed-effects model, active shortage designation alone was not associated with a significant increase in NADAC under clustered standard errors. In duration-specific models, shortages lasting more than four consecutive weeks were associated with approximately 7% higher NADAC, while each additional cumulative shortage week was associated with approximately 0.37% higher NADAC. Estimated CATEs varied widely across drugs in each week. Allocation restrictions, raw material and distribution disruptions, together with a lack of manufacturers, characterized shortages with higher estimated CATEs. These findings support monitoring both shortage persistence and supply-chain mechanisms to mitigate impacts on healthcare systems.

Introduction: Research has documented that obesity and morbidity are associated. Black persons in the United States (U.S.) incur higher financial costs of obesity-related multimorbidity (ORM). However, lifetime healthcare costs (LHCs) remain underexamined for these populations. Objective: We quantified racial differences in 1) LHCs and 2) lifetime healthcare cost differential (LCD) associated with ORM for ages > 40 years. Methods: We used the 2008- 2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component to examine unique obesity-related diseases (ORDs): high blood sugar, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and stroke. We used a prior published Markov model to simulate a person's life history of ORDs and compute LHCs among ages > 40 years. We computed LCD-associated ORM as the difference in LHC for those with ORM and LHC for members without ORDs. We quantified differences in race as the difference between LHC or LCD among White and Black men and women. Results: Our analytic sample included 53,035 Black and White persons representing 97,229,611 (S.E., 2,104,365), 12.4% as Black and 87.6% as White persons. ORM was more prevalent in the Black (21.2%) than the White group (13.4%). LHCs by race (Black/White) for women/men with ORM and LCDs associated with ORM (2012$) were $3 1,035/43,595 and $11,350/26,948 for age 40-49, $2 1,567/25,6 115 and $3,846/9,808 for 50-59, $9,863/18,515 and -$2,566/7,426 for 60-69, -$8,220/16,285 and -$11,524/3,865 for 70-79. Conclusions: Racial Differences in LHCs and LCDs related to ORM persist and vary across subpopulations. Future interventions designed to prevent/manage ORM are crucial for prioritizing populations with high LHCs and advancing health equity.

Abstract Background: Having a usual source of care (USC) supports continuity and access to health services. Recent national trends among U.S. children have not been comprehensively characterized. We examined changes in USC prevalence, subgroup heterogeneity, and reported reasons for not having a USC using the 2015-2024 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Methods: We analyzed the 2015-2024 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Full-Year Consolidated Data. Annual prevalence rates were estimated for children aged 0 to 17 years overall and by sex, age group, race and ethnicity, and insurance status. The reported reasons for not having a USC were grouped to low perceived need, preference or self-management, access or continuity barrier, and other reasons. The distribution of grouped reasons was analyzed for each study year. Temporal differences in yearly estimates were evaluated using two-sample z-tests between 2015 and 2019 and between 2015 and 2024, and average annual changes were estimated using generalized linear regression. Results: Overall USC prevalence declined from 92.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.9%, 93.8%) in 2015 to 87.2% (95% CI, 85.1%, 89.2%) in 2024. The estimated average annual change was -0.8 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.6). Declines were observed across most subgroups and were largest among uninsured children, whose prevalence decreased from 78.4% to 53.6%. Low perceived need remained the most common reported reason for not having a USC, while the proportion reporting access or continuity barriers decreased and the proportion classified as other reasons increased. Conclusions: Estimates based on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey indicated a substantial decline in the prevalence of having a USC among U.S. children, with notable heterogeneity by insurance status and race and ethnicity. Further research is needed to determine whether the decline reflects changing access, organization and use of pediatric care, survey measurement, or a combination of these factors.

Background/Aims This work aimed to estimate the annual tertiary healthcare and societal costs associated with paediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) in the United Kingdom using real-world data from a Level 1 cardiac surgical centre in the National Health Service (NHS). Methods A prevalence-based cost-of-illness analysis was conducted using patient-level inpatient and outpatient activity data from Evelina London Children's Hospital between 1 June 2023 and 31 May 2024. Costs were estimated from NHS and societal perspectives and extrapolated to national level using National Congenital Heart Disease Audit (NCHDA) procedural activity data. Healthcare costs included tertiary centre care costs. Societal costs included parental productivity losses and impacts on lifetime earnings for children. Deterministic sensitivity analysis explored parameter uncertainty. Results Approximately 9.6% of UK paediatric CHD procedures were undertaken at Evelina London Children's Hospital at a cost of {pound}15.0 million per annum, corresponding to a national estimate of {pound}156.4 million. Single-ventricle procedures accounted for 4.8% of inpatient activity but 19.4% of inpatient costs. Sensitivity analysis produced national healthcare cost estimates ranging from {pound}125.1 million to {pound}187.7 million. National productivity losses associated with parental absence from work were estimated at {pound}82.4 million annually. Individuals with CHD were estimated to experience a mean reduction in lifetime earnings of {pound}81,509. Conclusion Paediatric CHD imposes a substantial economic cost on the UK healthcare system and wider society. This study provides the first real-world national estimate of the economic impact of paediatric CHD in the UK and may inform future service planning, research investment, and innovation adoption strategies.