Background: Mobile Clinics represent an untapped resource for our healthcare system. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated its limitations. Mobile health clinic programs in the US already play important, albeit underappreciated roles in the healthcare system. They provide access to healthcare especially for displaced or isolated individuals; they offer versatility in the setting of a damaged or inadequate healthcare infrastructure; and, as a longstanding community-based service delivery model, they fill gaps in the healthcare safety-net, reaching socialeconomically underserved populations in both urban and rural areas. Despite an increasing body of evidence of the unique value of this highly adaptable model of care, mobile clinics are not widely supported. This has resulted in a missed opportunity to deploy mobile clinics during national emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as using these already existing, and trusted programs to overcome barriers to access that are experienced by under-resourced communities. Main text: In March, the Mobile Healthcare Association and Mobile Health Map, a program of Harvard Medical School's Family Van, hosted a webinar of over 300 mobile health providers, sharing their experiences, challenges and best practices of responding to COVID 19. They demonstrated the untapped potential of this sector of the healthcare system in responding to healthcare crises. A Call to Action: The flexibility and adaptability of mobile clinics make them ideal partners in responding to pandemics, such as COVID-19. In this commentary we propose three approaches to support further expansion and integration of mobile health clinics into the healthcare system: First, demonstrate the economic contribution of mobile clinics to the healthcare system. Second, expand the number of mobile clinic programs and integrate them into the healthcare infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Third, expand their use of technology to facilitate this integration.

These results suggest that becoming baby-friendly is relatively cost-neutral for a typical acute care hospital. Although the overall expense of providing baby-friendly hospital nursery services is greater than nursery service costs of non-baby-friendly hospitals, the cost difference was not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to compare the economic impact of maternal and infant health benefits from breastfeeding versus the incremental expenses of becoming a baby-friendly hospital.

Background As a comprehensive stroke center (CSC), we accept transfer patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in our region. CSC guidelines mandate receipt of patients with ICH for higher level of care. We determined resource utilization of patients accepted from outside hospitals compared with patients directly arriving to our center. Methods From our stroke registry, we compared patients with primary ICH transferred to those directly arriving to our CSC from March 2011–March 2012. We compared the proportion of patients who utilized at least one of these resources: neurointensive care unit (NICU), neurosurgical intervention, or clinical trial enrollment. Results Among the 362 patients, 210 (58%) were transfers. Transferred patients were older, had higher median Glasgow Coma Scale scores, and lower National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores than directly admitted patients. Transfers had smaller median ICH volumes (20.5 cc versus 15.2 cc; P = .04) and lower ICH scores (2.1 ± 1.4 versus 1.6 ± 1.3; P < .01). A smaller proportion of transfers utilized CSC-specific resources compared with direct admits (P = .02). Fewer transferred patients required neurosurgical intervention or were enrolled in trials. No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients who used NICU resources, although transferred patients had a significantly lower length of stay in the NICU. Average hospital stay costs were less for transferred patients than for direct admits. Conclusions Patients with ICH transferred to our CSC underwent fewer neurosurgical procedures and had a shorter stay in the NICU. These results were reflected in the lower per-patient costs in the transferred group. Our results raise the need to analyze cost–benefits and resource utilization of transferring patients with milder ICH.

The objectives of this study were to provide an economic assessment as well as a calculated projection of the costs that typical U.S. tertiary-care hospitals would incur through policy reconfiguration and implementation to achieve the UNICEF/World Health Organization Baby-Friendly® Hospital designation and to examine the associated challenges and benefits of becoming a Baby-Friendly Hospital. We analyzed hospital resource utilization, focusing on formula use and staffing profiles at one U.S. urban tertiary-care teaching hospital, as well as conducted an online survey and telephone interviews with a selection of Baby-Friendly Hospitals to obtain their perspective on costs, challenges, and benefits. Findings indicate that added costs for a new Baby-Friendly Hospital will approximate $148 per birth, but these costs sharply decrease over time as breastfeeding rates increase in a Baby-Friendly environment.

Introduction Mobile clinics provide an efficient manner for delivering healthcare services to at-risk populations, and there is a need to understand their economics. This study analyzes the costs of operating selected mobile clinic programs representing service categories in dental, dental/preventive, preventive care, primary care/preventive, and mammography/primary care/preventive. Methods The methodology included a self-reported survey of 96 mobile clinic programs operating in Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; these states did not expand Medicaid and have a large proportion of uninsured individuals. Data were collected over an 8-month period from November 2016 to July 2017. The cost analyses were conducted in 2018, and were analyzed from the provider perspective. The average annual estimated costs; as well the costs per patient in each mobile clinic program within different service delivery types were assessed. Costs reported in the study survey were classified into recurrent direct costs and capital costs. Results Results indicate that mean operating costs range from about $300 000 to $2.5 million with costs increasing from mammography/primary care/preventive delivery to dental/preventive. The majority of mobile clinics provided dental care followed by dental/preventive. The cost per patient visit for all mobile clinic service types ranged from $65 to $529, and appears to be considerably less than those reported in the literature for fixed clinic services. Conclusion The overall costs of all delivery types in mobile clinics were lower than the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries in federally funded health centers, making mobile clinics a sound economic complement to stationary healthcare facilities.