International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume:9 Issue: 11, Nov 2020

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to unfold there is an untold number of trade-offs being made in every country around the globe. The experience in the United Kingdom and Canada to date has not seen much uptake of health economics methods. We provide some thoughts on how this could take place, specifically in three areas. Firstly, this can involve understanding the impact of lockdown policies on national productivity. Secondly, there is great importance in studying trade-offs with respect to enhancing health system capacity and the impact of the mix of private-public financing. Finally, there are key trade-offs that will continue to be made both in terms of access to testing and ventilators which would benefit greatly from economic appraisal. In short, health economics could – and we would argue most certainly should – play a much more prominent role in policy-making as it relates to the current as well as future pandemics.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This pandemic is characterized by a high variability in death rate (defined as the ratio between the number of deaths and the total number of infected people) across world countries. Several possible explanations have been proposed, but it is not clear whether this variability is due to a single predominant factor or instead to multiple causes. Here we addressed this issue using multivariable regression analysis to test the impact of the following factors: the hospital stress (defined as the ratio between the number of infected cases and the total number of hospital beds), the population median age, and the quality of the National Health System (NHS). For this analysis, we chose countries of the world with over 3000 infected cases as of April 1, 2020. Hospital stress was found to be the crucial factor in explaining the variability of death rate, while the others had negligible relevance. Different procedures for quantifying cases of infection and death for COVID-19 could affect the variability in death rate across countries. We therefore applied the same statistical approach to Italy, which is divided into 20 Regions that share the same protocol for counting the outcomes of this pandemic. Correlation between hospital stress and death rate was even stronger than that observed for countries of the world. Based on our findings and the historical trend for the availability of hospital beds, we propose guidelines for policy-makers to properly manage future pandemics.

Background Allocation of adequate healthcare facilities is one of the most important factors that public health policy-makers consider when preparing for infectious disease outbreaks. Negative pressure isolation rooms (NPIRs) are one of the critical resources for control of infectious respiratory diseases, such as the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. However, there is insufficient attention to efficient allocation of NPIR-equipped hospitals.   Methods We aim to explore any insufficiency and spatial disparity of NPIRs in South Korea in response to infectious disease outbreaks based on a simple analytic approach. We examined the history of installing NPIRs in South Korea between the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-Cov) in 2015 to evaluate the allocation process and spatial distribution of NPIRs across the country. Then, for two types of infectious diseases (a highly contagious disease like COVID-19 vs. a hospital-based transmission like MERS-Cov), we estimated the level of disparity between NPIR capacity and demand at the sub-regional level in South Korea by applying the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method.   Results Geospatial information system (GIS) mapping reveals a substantial shortage and misallocation of NPIRs, indicating that the Korean government should consider a simple but evidence-based spatial method to identify the areas that need NPIRs most and allocate funds wisely. The 2SFCA method suggests that, despite the recent addition of NPIRs across the country, there should still be more NPIRs regardless of the spread pattern of the disease. It also illustrates high levels of regional disparity in allocation of those facilities in preparation for an infectious disease, due to the lack of evidence-based approach.   Conclusion These findings highlight the importance of evidence-based decision-making processes in allocating public health facilities, as misallocation of facilities could impede the responsiveness of the public health system during an epidemic. This study provides some evidence to be used to allocate the resources for NPIRs, the urgency of which is heightened in the face of rapidly evolving threats from the novel COVID-19 outbreak.