Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving 2023 Kwon et al

[Sly Saint]

Abstract
Background
Around 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK.

Methods
The target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics.

Results
366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores.

Conclusion
LC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving | The European Journal of Health Economics (springer.com)

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

The substantial productivity loss associated with LC estimated by this study is broadly consistent with those of previous UK-based studies.

The substantial productivity impact of LC is clear when the labour market activity of LC patients is compared to that of the general UK population. According to the UK Department for Work & Pensions, the proportion economically inactive or unemployed in 2022 was 14.5% for those aged 35–49 years (9.4% for men, 19.4% for women) and 30.0% for those aged 50–64 years (26.0%, 33.9%). The corresponding proportions in our study sample were 36.8% for those aged 35–49 years (38.7%, 36.3%) and 43.2% for those aged 50–64 years (31.7%, 51.1%).

Reformatting the economically inactive or unemployed: general population (2022) -> LC patients (this study) —

35-49 All: 14.5% -> 36.8%
35-49 M: 9.4% -> 38.7%
35-49 F: 19.4% -> 36.3%

50–64 All: 30.0% -> 43.2%%
50–64 M: 26.0% -> 31.7%
50–64 F: 33.9% -> 51.1%

Proportionally, therefore, the productivity impact has been most acute for male LC patients aged 35–49 years whose rate of economic inactivity or unemployment is 411.7% of that of their UK general population peers. It should be noted that the highest rate of LC incidence in the UK has been found among the older working age population aged 45–69 years. This study hence finds that the younger working age population has been disproportionately affected in terms of labour market participation.

the loss values were extrapolated only to those whose LC symptoms limited their daily activities ‘a lot’. In addition to the 381,000 individuals in this group, there were 1,075,000 in the UK who reported LC symptoms limiting their daily activities ‘a little’ (323,000 with LC duration < 1 year, 307,000 1–2 years, and 445,000 > 2 years). Those with unknown LC duration were also excluded from the extrapolation. Accounting for these groups’ losses would likely enlarge the aggregate burden.

We will await comment from the DWP

 

[Amw66]

Reformatting the economically inactive or unemployed: general population (2022) -> LC patients (this study) —

35-49 All: 14.5% -> 36.8%
35-49 M: 9.4% -> 38.7%
35-49 F: 19.4% -> 36.3%

50–64 All: 30.0% -> 43.2%%
50–64 M: 26.0% -> 31.7%
50–64 F: 33.


We will await comment from the DWP

We already have that in the scheme to get people back to work, and a flurry of MSM articles in the effects of lockdown in mental health ( suggesting this why folks struggle with work )
Insurance companies have already picked up on this months ago.
There's already a playbook and they're trying to use it.
The difference this time around is sheer numbers - remains to be seen if this makes a difference.

ETA spelling

 

[rvallee]

Reformatting the economically inactive or unemployed: general population (2022) -> LC patients (this study) —

35-49 All: 14.5% -> 36.8%
35-49 M: 9.4% -> 38.7%
35-49 F: 19.4% -> 36.3%

50–64 All: 30.0% -> 43.2%%
50–64 M: 26.0% -> 31.7%
50–64 F: 33.9% -> 51.1%

We will await comment from the DWP

They did.

Life coaches and running clubs to help get people back to work

Ministers launch WorkWell scheme to help reduce the numbers signed off, with job centres encouraged to refer people for advice and therapeutic recreation

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ubs-to-help-get-people-back-to-work-m3ffs3vxh

I've often remarked that the entire CBT/GET paradigm and the "exercise is good for health" models all basically amount to therapeutic recreation. Nevermind that the people assigned to those were often perfectly capable of doing that before they lost the ability to work or function, and that this has nothing with being unable to work.

It's kind of odd seeing it so plainly described here. It's a solution that has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem, they will waste money so they can lose more money in the end, all in the pursuit of profit. So, basically the Arrested development model of "take a dollar from the register, throw away a banana" (Youtube video link).

The worst combination of the worst aspects of Soviet bureaucracy and crass capitalism. Evidence-based medicine has truly perfected the most awe-inducing textbook pseudoscience ever, and it somehow managed to do worse than some of the worst ideas ever put forward in economic sciences. It's right there with supply-side economics / give money to billionaires to help the poor.