Background Vaccine is supposed to be the most effective means to prevent COVID-19 as it may not only save lives but also reduce productivity loss due to resuming pre-pandemic activities. Providing the results of economic evaluation for mass vaccination is paramount important for all stakeholders worldwide. Methods We developed a Markov decision tree for the economic evaluation of mass vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of reducing outcomes after the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)) were modelled with empirical parameters obtained from literatures. The direct cost of vaccine and COVID-19 related medical cost, the indirect cost of productivity loss due to vaccine jabs and hospitalization, and the productivity loss were accumulated given different vaccination scenarios. We reported the incremental cost-utility ratio and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of three vaccines compared to no vaccination with a probabilistic approach. Results Moderna and Pfizer vaccines won the greatest effectiveness among the three vaccines under consideration. After taking both direct and indirect costs into account, all of the three vaccines dominated no vaccination strategy. The results of B/C ratio show that one dollar invested in vaccine would have USD $13, USD $23, and USD $28 in return for Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, respectively when health and education loss are considered. The corresponding figures taking value of the statistical life into account were USD $176, USD $300, and USD $443. Conclusion Mass vaccination against COVID-19 with three current available vaccines is cost-saving for gaining more lives and less cost incurred.

We investigated alternative measurement methodology for infrared body thermometry to increase accuracy for outdoor fever screening during the 2003 SARS epidemic. Our results indicate that the auditory meatus temperature is a superior alternative compared with the forehead body surface temperature due to its close approximation to the tympanic temperature.

Many countries have implemented pay-for-performance programs to improve the quality of care. The structure of these programs, however, can have perverse consequences beyond improving care for patients. To investigate this possibility, we studied the pattern of enrollment of patients with diabetes in the first five years of a pay-for-performance program in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Program from 2001 through 2005. Taiwan's program did sharply improve quality of care for enrolled patients, producing 100 percent or nearly 100 percent adherence to all process measures. But at the same time, only a minority of the nation's patients with diabetes were enrolled, because the program's design encouraged physicians not to enroll their most complicated patients. By "cherry-picking" the healthiest patients most likely to perform well on selected measures, physicians were able to game the system and potentially reap the rewards of higher pay-for-performance payments without actually improving the care of all of their diabetic patients. Our study provides a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of proper program design so that quality is improved on the broadest scale.

Autonomy support from physicians and nurses contributes to improving HD patients' HRQOL through basic need satisfaction. This indicates that staff caring for patients with severe chronic diseases should offer considerable support for patient autonomy.

Current debates in the insurance and public policy literatures over health care financing and cost control measures continue to focus on managed care and HMOs. The lower utilization rates found in HMOs (compared to traditional fee-for-service indemnity plans) have generally been attributed to the organization's incentive to eliminate all unnecessary medical services. As a consequence HMOs are often considered to be a more efficient arrangement for delivering health care. However, it is important to make a distinction between utilization and efficiency (the ratio of outcomes to resources). Few studies have investigated the effect that HMO arrangements would have on the actual efficiency of health care delivery. Because greater control over provider autonomy appears to be a recurrent theme in the literature on reform, it is important to investigate the effects these restrictions have already had within the HMO market. In this article, the efficiencies of two major classes of HMO arrangements are compared using "game-theoretic" data envelopment analysis (DEA) models. While other studies confirm that absolute costs to insurance firms and sponsoring companies are lowered using HMOs, our empirical findings suggest that, within this framework, efficiency generally becomes worse when provider autonomy is restricted. This should give new fuel to the insurance companies providing fee-for-service (FFS) indemnification plans in their marketplace contentions. Copyright The Journal of Risk and Insurance.