Search

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy in the United States. We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after the second dose) among older adults from a healthcare system perspective. Compared with 2 doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million in vaccination cost but save $6.7 million in direct medical cost and gain 3.7 quality-adjusted life-years in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. Notably, the cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. If vaccine efficacies reduce by 10%, 30%, and 50%, this threshold will increase to 9.7/100,000, 13.9/100,000, and 21.9/100,000 person-day, respectively. Offering the BNT162b2 booster to older adults aged ≥65 years in the United States is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-CoV-2 transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Differences in healthcare utilization and medical expenditures associated with perinatal depression are estimated.Methods: Using the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Database, the analytic cohort included individuals aged 15-44 years who had an inpatient live birth delivery hospitalization between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the differences in utilization associated with perinatal depression, and multivariable generalized linear models were used to estimate the differences in expenditures associated with perinatal depression. Analyses were conducted in 2021.Results: The cohort included 330,593 individuals. Nearly 17% had perinatal depression. Compared with individuals without perinatal depression individuals with perinatal depression had a larger number of inpatient admissions (0.19, 95% CI=0.18, 0.20), total inpatient days (0.95, 95% CI=0.92, 0.97), outpatient visits (14.02, 95% CI=13.81, 14.22), emergency department visits (1.70, 95% CI=1.66, 1.74), and weeks of drug therapy covered by a prescription (28.70, 95% CI=28.12, 29.28) and larger total expenditures ($5,078, 95% CI=$4,816, $5,340). Non-Hispanic Black individuals had larger differences in utilization and expenditures for inpatient services and outpatient visits but smaller differences in utilization for pharmaceutical services associated with perinatal depression than non-Hispanic White individuals. Hispanic individuals had larger differences in utilization for outpatient visits but smaller differences in utilization for pharmaceutical services associated with perinatal depression than non-Hispanic White individuals.Conclusions: Individuals with perinatal depression had more healthcare utilization and medical expenditures than individuals without perinatal depression, and differences varied by race/ethnicity. The findings highlight the need to ensure comprehensive and equitable mental health care to address perinatal depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]