Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development working paper: The impacts of long COVID across OECD countries

The impacts of long COVID across OECD countries
Ana Espinosa Gonzalez and Elina Suzuki
Imperial College London, UK
OECD, Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, Health Division

From Key Findings —

3. Long COVID can severely limit people’s ability to undertake basic activities of daily life and can dramatically hamper quality of life. More than 7 million quality-adjusted life years may be lost annually across OECD countries due to the condition. Studies from across a range of OECD countries suggest that one sixth to more than one-third of people may have persistent cognitive symptoms, often lasting more than 12 weeks, after a COVID-19 infection.

4. Even conservative estimates of long COVID prevalence would indicate that long COVID may be reducing the workforce by nearly 3 million workers across OECD countries, amounting to an economic cost of at least $141 billion USD from lost wages alone. Moreover, even among those who were able to return to the labour force, a significant proportion reported needing to reduce the number of hours they worked, compared to before their infection.

5. The economic and social welfare costs of long COVID are dramatic: Even excluding the direct costs of health care, long COVID is likely costing OECD countries as much as $864 billion - $1.04 trillion USD per year due to reductions in quality of life and labour force participation. The limitations in activities experienced by long COVID patients, including dropping out or reducing their participation in the labour force, as well as direct medical care costs, can have dramatic implications on their financial well-being. Costs to health and social protection systems may also be high over time.

 

Adding point 9 as well:

9. Long COVID is not the first chronic condition faced by countries, and the care and support for people living with long COVID should draw on lessons learned in developing approaches to care for other chronic conditions and post-viral syndromes, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis (also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)). Similarly, policymakers should actively consider how and what lessons might be drawn from their experience scaling up the response to long COVID to allocate resources and implement sustainable care pathways for such conditions.

 

More on ME on p. 30:

Policies to tackle long COVID should be informed by other chronic conditions – and help to inform responses to other chronic diseases in turn

69. Long COVID is a new condition, but it is not the first chronic condition to hit health systems, and many lessons can be taken from how health and social protection schemes care for people living with other conditions and support them in their working lives.

In particular, patients living with conditions such as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) have been identified as demonstrating similar characteristics and symptoms as people exhibiting symptoms of long COVID. In the United States, methods and data collection instruments developed for research on ME/CFS are being applied to long COVID research.

Many countries, such as Austria and the United Kingdom, have already developed care pathways for the treatment and support of people living with ME/CFS, while well-developed care pathways for other chronic conditions also exist across OECD countries that could be potentially adapted to be used by long COVID patients (Gesundheit Österreich, 2022[128]; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2021[129]).

As support mechanisms for long COVID are developed or scaled up, and research into the condition leads to a better understanding of the most effective ways to treat people living with long COVID, lessons learned from the development of care systems for other chronic conditions should play a key role in informing the long COVID care, while policymakers should also consider whether lessons from their experience supporting people with long COVID can also be applied to other chronic conditions.

 

.Here is me thinking that the U K approach to M E care pathway was to forget that people with m e actually have an illness and fob us of so often that we stop seeing them .i have very little faith in the medical industry when it comes to serving patient needs first.

 

For anyone like me who struggles to read/remember acronyms:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

“The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop policy standards to promote sustainable economic growth.”

eg https://www.state.gov/the-organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development-oecd/#:~:text=and Development (OECD)-,The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),to promote sustainable economic growth.

 

Yes, my first thought on reading the suggestion that the best response to Long Covid is to scale up existing responses to ME/CFS was please no. The most that can be learnt from most ME/CFS service provision and much research is ‘what not to do’.

 

Ugh. No they have not. Not adequate ones based on actual needs and make any difference compared to a potato sack. This counts the same way as money spent on AIDS denial should count as money invested to fight AIDS. They are based on the exact opposite of what's needed.

As they speak of learning lessons from ME/CFS, this is the main lesson: pseudoscientific alternative medical models based on denial of basic facts are extremely expensive and harmful, we are in the finding out phase after decades of fucking around.

Otherwise it's good to see economic data aligning and making an indisputable case that it's far cheaper to solve this than let it fester, as all the costs have to be added on top of an estimated $100B/year from ME/CFS alone, going back decades, that's several trillions and there are only three things to show for it: 1) millions of lives ruined in immense suffering, 2) enormous economic and financial losses and 3) a parasitic pseudoscientific industry that exists only for its own purpose.

Actually I think it would be important to have a list of those economic analyses, that's several now. So I created a thread: Analyses of the costs and economic costs and impacts of chronic illnesses like ME/CFS and Long Covid.