To determine the cost of wound care and prevalence of chronic wounds for Medicare beneficiaries in the aggregate, by wound type, and by setting between the years 2014 and 2019. This retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for diabetic foot ulcers and infections; arterial ulcers; skin disorders and infections; surgical wounds and infections; traumatic wounds; venous ulcers and infections; unspecified chronic ulcers; and others. The 2014 data were based on a Medicare 5% Limited Data Set whereas for 2019 the data used were for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Three methods were used to generate expenditure estimates: (a) a low (Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible); (b) mid (primary plus secondary diagnosis with weighted attribution); and (c) high (primary or secondary diagnosis). The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service. Over the 5-year period the number of Medicare beneficiaries with a wound increased from 8.2 million to 10.5 million. Wound prevalence increased by 13% from 14.5% to 16.4%. Over the 5-year period, the Medicare beneficiaries with the largest increase in chronic wound prevalence were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of wound prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and decreases in traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%). Expenditures decreased regardless of the three methods used with a reduction of $29.7 billion to $22.5 billion for the most conservative method. Except for venous ulcers in which costs per Medicare beneficiary increased from $1206 to $1803, cost per wound decreased with surgical wounds remaining the most expensive to treat (2014: $3566; 2019: $2504), and the largest decrease for arterial ulcers ($9651 to $1322). Hospital outpatient fees saw the largest reduction ($10.5 billion to $2.5 billion) although home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion. Physician offices saw an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion and durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion. It appears that chronic wound care expenditures have shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given that the prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

Purpose: To estimate the annual loss of productivity from blindness and moderate to severe visual impairment (MSVI) using simple models (analogous to how a rapid assessment model relates to a comprehensive model) based on minimum wage (MW) and gross national income (GNI) per capita (US$, 2011). Methods: Cost of blindness (COB) was calculated for the age group ≥50 years in nine sample countries by assuming the loss of current MW and loss of GNI per capita. It was assumed that all individuals work until 65 years old and that half of visual impairment prevalent in the ≥50 years age group is prevalent in the 50–64 years age group. For cost of MSVI (COMSVI), individual wage and GNI loss of 30% was assumed. Results were compared with the values of the uncorrected refractive error (URE) model of productivity loss. Results: COB (MW method) ranged from $0.1 billion in Honduras to $2.5 billion in the United States, and COMSVI ranged from $0.1 billion in Honduras to $5.3 billion in the US. COB (GNI method) ranged from $0.1 million in Honduras to $7.8 billion in the US, and COMSVI ranged from $0.1 billion in Honduras to $16.5 billion in the US. Most GNI method values were near equivalent to those of the URE model. Conclusion: Although most people with blindness and MSVI live in developing countries, the highest productivity losses are in high income countries. The global economy could improve if eye care were made more accessible and more affordable to all.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that employed the use of topical oxygen therapy (TOT) as an adjunct therapy in the treatment of Wagner 1 and 2 diabetic foot ulcers. Approach: Following a literature search of eligible studies from 2010 onward, four RCTs were included. Studies were analyzed for patient and wound characteristics, outcomes, risk of bias, and quality of the evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A random-effects meta-analysis for complete wound healing was carried out due to statistical heterogeneity of included studies. Results: Risk of bias judgment (RoB2 analysis) resulted in one low-risk trial and three trials with some risk. One study was determined to be the origin of the statistical heterogeneity. Pooled results showed statistical significance with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–2.37; p = 0.021). Sensitivity analysis, based on imputed values for missing outcomes, demonstrated that both the RR and 95% CIs changed little. The GRADE ratings for each domain were as follows: (a) risk of bias: moderate (3); (b) imprecision: moderate (2), high (1); (c) inconsistency: low (2), high (1); (d) indirectness: moderate (2), high (1); and (e) publication bias: moderate (1), high (2). Overall, the evidence was moderate. Innovation: Our study shows that TOT is a viable diabetic foot ulcer therapy. Conclusions: These data support the use of TOT for the treatment of chronic Wagner 1 or 2 diabetic foot ulcers in the absence of infection and ischemia.

Although visual impairment due to cataract is not a major issue in developed countries, in developing countries increasing cataract surgery rates to treat backlogs and meet the demands of an aging population are still a challenging problem, despite advances in surgical techniques and the manufacture of low-cost intraocular lenses (IOLs).¹