Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in negative impacts on the economy, population health, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Objective To assess the impact of COVID-19 on US population HRQoL using the EQ-5D-5L. Design We surveyed respondents on physical and mental health, demographics, socioeconomics, brief medical history, current COVID-19 status, sleep, dietary, financial, and spending changes. Results were compared to online and face-to-face US population norms. Predictors of EQ-5D-5L utility were analyzed using both standard and post-lasso OLS regressions. Robustness of regression coefficients against unmeasured confounding was analyzed using the E-Value sensitivity analysis. Subjects Amazon MTurk workers ( n =2776) in the USA. Main Measures EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores by age group. Key Results We received n =2746 responses. Subjects 18–24 years reported lower mean (SD) health utility (0.752 (0.281)) compared with both online (0.844 (0.184), p =0.001) and face-to-face norms (0.919 (0.127), p <0.001). Among ages 25–34, utility was worse compared to face-to-face norms only (0.825 (0.235) vs. 0.911 (0.111), p <0.001). For ages 35–64, utility was better during pandemic compared to online norms (0.845 (0.195) vs. 0.794 (0.247), p <0.001). At age 65+, utility values (0.827 (0.213)) were similar across all samples. VAS scores were worse for all age groups ( p <0.005) except ages 45–54. Increasing age and income were correlated with increased utility, while being Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, married, living alone, having history of chronic illness or self-reported depression, experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms, having a family member diagnosed with COVID-19, fear of COVID-19, being underweight, and living in California were associated with worse utility scores. Results were robust to unmeasured confounding. Conclusions HRQoL decreased during the pandemic compared to US population norms, especially for ages 18–24. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is significant and falls primarily on younger adults whose health outcomes may have been overlooked based on policy initiatives to date. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06674-z.

The period before pregnancy is critically important for the health of a woman and her infant, yet not all women have access to health insurance during this time. We evaluated whether increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions affected ten preconception health indicators, including the prevalence of chronic conditions and health behaviors, birth control use and pregnancy intention, and receipt of preconception health services. By comparing changes in outcomes for low-income women in expansion and nonexpansion states, we document greater preconception health counseling, prepregnancy folic acid intake, and postpartum use of effective birth control methods among low-income women associated with Medicaid expansion. We do not find evidence of changes on the other preconception health indicators examined. Our findings indicate that expanding Medicaid led to detectable improvements on a subset of preconception health measures.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Since 2020, COVID-19 has infected tens of millions and caused hundreds of thousands of fatalities in the United States. Infection waves lead to increased emergency department utilization and critical care admission for patients with respiratory distress. Although many individuals develop symptoms necessitating a ventilator, some patients with COVID-19 can remain at home to mitigate hospital overcrowding. Remote pulse-oximetry (pulse-ox) monitoring of moderately ill patients with COVID-19 can be used to monitor symptom escalation and trigger hospital visits, as needed. Methods We analyzed the cost-utility of remote pulse-ox monitoring using a Markov model with a 3-week time horizon and daily cycles from a US health sector perspective. Costs (US dollar 2020) and outcomes were derived from the University Hospitals’ real-world evidence and published literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY. We assessed model uncertainty using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Model results demonstrated that remote monitoring dominates current standard care, by reducing costs ($11 472 saved) and improving outcomes (0.013 QALYs gained). There were 87% fewer hospitalizations and 77% fewer deaths among patients with access to remote pulse-ox monitoring. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not sensitive to uncertainty ranges in the model. Conclusions Patient with COVID-19 remote pulse-ox monitoring increases the specificity of those requiring follow-up care for escalating symptoms. We recommend remote monitoring adoption across health systems to economically manage COVID-19 volume surges, maintain patients’ comfort, reduce community infection spread, and carefully monitor needs of multiple individuals from one location by trained experts.