COVID-19: Peer Support and Crisis Communication Strategies to Promote Institutional Resilience

Supporting Clinicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Protecting Hospitals From the Invisible

Harmonized Outcome Measures for Use in Depression Patient Registries and Clinical Practice

Major depressive disorder is a common mental health condition that affects an estimated 16.2 million adults and 3.1 million adolescents in the United States. Yet, a lack of uniformity remains in measurements and monitoring for depression both in clinical practice and in research settings. This project aimed to develop a minimum set of standardized outcome measures relevant to both patients and clinicians that can be collected in depression registries and clinical practice. Twenty-nine depression registries and related data collection efforts were identified and invited to submit outcome measures. Additional measures were identified through literature searches and reviews of quality measures. A multistakeholder panel representing clinicians; payers; government agencies; industry; and medical specialty, health care quality, and patient advocacy organizations categorized the 27 identified measures using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's supported Outcome Measures Framework. The panel identified 10 broadly relevant measures and harmonized definitions for these measures through in-person and virtual meetings. The harmonized measures represent a minimum set of outcomes that are relevant to clinicians and patients and appropriate for use in depression research and clinical practice. Routine and consistent collection of these measures in registries and other systems would support creation of a national research infrastructure to efficiently address new questions, improve patient management and outcomes, and facilitate care coordination.

Annals Clinical Decision Making: Avoiding Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision Making

Annals Clinical Decision Making: Translating Population Evidence to Individual Patients

Annals Clinical Decision Making: Communicating Risk and Engaging Patients in Shared Decision Making

Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017

Background: Before Canada's single-payer reform, its payment system, health costs, and number of health administrative personnel per capita resembled those of the United States. By 1999, administration accounted for 31% of U.S. health expenditures versus 16.7% in Canada. No recent comprehensive analyses of those costs are available. Objective: To quantify 2017 spending for administration by insurers and providers. Design: Analyses of government reports, accounting data that providers file with regulators, surveys of physicians, and census-collected data on employment in health care. Setting: United States and Canada. Measurements: Insurance overhead; administrative expenditures of hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices. Results: U.S. insurers and providers spent $812 billion on administration, amounting to $2497 per capita (34.2% of national health expenditures) versus $551 per capita (17.0%) in Canada: $844 versus $146 on insurers' overhead; $933 versus $196 for hospital administration; $255 versus $123 for nursing home, home care, and hospice administration; and $465 versus $87 for physicians' insurance-related costs. Of the 3.2–percentage point increase in administration's share of U.S. health expenditures since 1999, 2.4 percentage points was due to growth in private insurers' overhead, mostly because of high overhead in their Medicare and Medicaid managed-care plans. Limitations: Estimates exclude dentists, pharmacies, and some other providers; accounting categories for the 2 countries differ somewhat; and methodological changes probably resulted in an underestimate of administrative cost growth since 1999. Conclusion: The gap in health administrative spending between the United States and Canada is large and widening, and it apparently reflects the inefficiencies of the U.S. private insurance–based, multipayer system. The prices that U.S. medical providers charge incorporate a hidden surcharge to cover their costly administrative burden. Primary Funding Source: None.

A Process for Assessing Products for Infection Prevention in Health Care Settings: A Framework From the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Infection control is a complex task that spans people, products, and practices in diverse settings. For years, the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) has provided advice and guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on how best to prevent infections. These recommendations have focused largely on health care delivery practices and occasionally on general categories of products. With an influx of novel infection control products and growing use of these products by frontline clinicians, an efficient process for developing transparent, rigorous product recommendations that includes myriad data sources was necessary. To address this gap, the CDC asked HICPAC to develop a process that would help inform committees considering product-related recommendations. This article describes the process to develop this approach and provides an outline of how the tool may be used when products with infection control claims are recommended in guidelines or recommendations for infection prevention.

The Italian Belle