BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions delivered by disease intervention specialists (DIS), relatively few studies have assessed their economic outcomes. We performed a systematic literature review of the cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit of DIS-delivered interventions for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. METHODS: Building on a recent systematic review of the effectiveness of DIS-delivered interventions, we reviewed economic outcomes associated with these interventions for STIs. We searched articles indexed in MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from 2000 through December 2022, using these inclusion criteria: addressed an intervention of DIS-delivered interventions for STIs including partner services; United States setting; and included estimates for program cost, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit. Findings were summarized through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, DIS-delivered interventions including STI partner services can be a cost-effective use of public health resources. In some scenarios, the cost of these interventions can be completely offset by averted medical costs. Cost and cost-effectiveness estimates of DIS-delivered interventions can vary across geographic settings and under different epidemiologic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although scarce, the available evidence suggests DIS-delivered interventions including STI partner services are an efficient use of public health resources. Health economic modeling studies are needed to facilitate conversion of intermediate cost-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., cost per syphilis case identified and treated) into standard cost-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained).

Early in the 2022 mpox outbreak, the U.S. recommendation was to administer two doses of the JYNNEOS® vaccine 4 weeks apart. However, because of limited vaccine supply, New York City (NYC) prioritized single dose vaccination. We estimated mpox cases averted by this strategy compared to strategies that prioritized 2-dose vaccination for a smaller portion of the population. We fit a network transmission model to incident mpox cases in NYC. Model output consisted of predicted cases over time when vaccine doses were administered with the 'first-dose priority' strategy, compared with counterfactual simulations where doses were administered to those eligible for a second dose ahead of those waiting for a first dose ('intermediate' strategy), or where individuals were pre-allocated full courses of the vaccine ('second-dose priority' strategy). We estimate that NYC's strategy averted 66% [IQR:47%-78%] of potential mpox cases compared to no vaccination. This 'first-dose priority' strategy averted 0.6% [IQR:-11%-9.8%] more cases than the 'intermediate' strategy, and 17% [IQR:2.9%-38%] more cases than the 'second-dose priority' strategy. Thus, for the 2022 mpox outbreak in NYC, pre-allocating vaccine doses to ensure full vaccination in a high-priority subset of the population would have increased the size of the outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the landscape of policies that determine eligibility for family planning services through Medicaid programs and describe trends in eligibility and its determinants over time. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Secondary data were collected for all states in the United States for the years 2008 through 2023. Data on economic and demographic characteristics came from the American Community Survey (ACS). STUDY DESIGN: Our descriptive study characterized state adoptions of Medicaid family planning section 1115 waivers and state plan amendments (SPA) and their eligibility criteria. We then estimated the proportion of women aged 19-44 years who were eligible for family planning services through Medicaid and identified the key determinants of changes in eligibility, by state and year. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Information on state Medicaid policies was extracted from documentation on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. When estimating the eligible population sizes, the denominator was women aged 19-44 years, the group most likely to be eligible for Medicaid family planning programs. Supplemental data on program enrollment or utilization were collected from states' websites and reports. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Though eligibility limits for family planning through Medicaid generally increased over time, the proportion of women aged 19-44 years eligible for at least limited benefits decreased from 45.0% in 2012 to 39.4% in 2022, largely because of increases in household income. Trends varied considerably across states and by eligibility pathway. Among women with incomes below the poverty level, the proportion who were not eligible for Medicaid family planning services decreased from 6.3% in 2013 to 1.5% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated substantial geographic and temporal variation in eligibility for family planning services through Medicaid. We identified key drivers of eligibility changes that may have important implications for health services analyses of means-tested public programs.