Sam Watson’s journal round-up for 11th December 2017

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Can incentives improve survey data quality in developing countries?: results from a field experiment in India. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A Published 17th November 2017

I must admit a keen interest in the topic of this paper. As part of a large project looking at the availability of health services in slums and informal settlements around the world, we are designing a household survey. Much like the Demographic and Health Surveys, which are perhaps the Gold standard of household surveys in low-income countries, interviewers will go door to door to sampled households to complete surveys. One of the issues with household surveys is that they take a long time, and so non-response can be an issue. A potential solution is to offer respondents incentives, cash or otherwise, either before the survey or conditionally on completing it. But any change in survey response as a result of an incentive might create suspicion around data quality. Work in high-income countries suggests incentives to participate have little or no effect on data quality. But there is little evidence about these effects in low-income countries. We might suspect the consequences of survey incentives to differ in poorer settings. For a start, many surveys are conducted on behalf of the government or an NGO, and respondents may misrepresent themselves if they believe further investment in their area might be forthcoming if they are sufficiently badly-off. There may also be larger differences between the interviewer and interviewee in terms of education or cultural background. And finally, incentives can affect the balance between a respondent’s so-called intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for doing something. This study presents the results of a randomised trial where the ‘treatment’ was a small conditional payment for completing a survey, and the ‘control’ was no incentive. In both arms, the response rate was very high (>96%), but it was higher in the treatment arm. More importantly, the authors compare responses to a broad range of socioeconomic and demographic questions between the study arms. Aside from the frequent criticism that statistical significance is interpreted here as the existence of a difference, there are some interesting results. The key observed difference is that in the incentive arm respondents reported having lower wealth consistently across a number of categories. This may result from any of the aforementioned effects of incentives, but may be evidence that incentives can affect data quality and should be used with caution.

Association of US state implementation of newborn screening policies for critical congenital heart disease with early infant cardiac deaths. JAMA [PubMedPublished 5th December 2017

Writing these journal round-ups obviously requires reading the papers that you choose. This can be quite an undertaking for papers published in economics journals, which are often very long, but they provide substantial detail allowing for a thorough appraisal. The opposite is true for articles in medical journals. They are pleasingly concise, but often at the expense of including detail or additional analyses. This paper falls into the latter camp. Using detailed panel data on infant deaths by cause by year and by state in the US, it estimates the effect of mandated screening policies for infant congenital heart defects on deaths from this condition. Given these data and more space, one might expect to see more flexible models than the differences in differences type analysis presented here, such as allowing for state-level correlated time trends. The results seem clear and robust – the policies were associated with a reduction in death from congenital heart conditions by around a third. Given this, one might ask: if it’s so effective, why weren’t doctors doing it anyway? Additional analyses reveal little to no association of the policies with death from other conditions, which may suggest that doctors didn’t have to reallocate their time from other beneficial functions. Perhaps then the screening bore other costs. In the discussion, the authors mention that a previous economic evaluation showed that universal screening was relatively costly (approximately $40,000 per life year saved), but that this may be an overestimate in light of these new results. Certainly then an updated economic evaluation is warranted. However, the models used in the paper may lead one to be cautious about causal interpretations and hence using the estimates in an evaluation. Given some more space the authors may have added additional analyses, but then I might not have read it…

Subsidies and structure: the lasting impact of the Hill-Burton program on the hospital industry. Review of Economics and Statistics [RePEcPublished 29th November 2017

As part of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 in the United States, the Hill-Burton program was enacted. As a reaction to the perceived lack of health care services for workers during World War 2, the program provided subsidies of up to a third for building nonprofit and local hospitals. Poorer areas were prioritised. This article examines the consequences of this subsidy program on the structure of the hospital market and health care utilisation. The main result is that the program had the consequence of increasing hospital beds per capita and that this increase was lasting. More specific analyses are presented. Firstly, the increase in beds took a number of years to materialise and showed a dose-response; higher-funded counties had bigger increases. Secondly, the funding reduced private hospital bed capacity. The net effect on overall hospital beds was positive, so the program affected the composition of the hospital sector. Although this would be expected given that it substantially affected the relative costs of different types of hospital bed. And thirdly, hospital utilisation increased in line with the increases in capacity, indicating a previously unmet need for health care. Again, this was expected given the motivation for the program in the first place. It isn’t often that results turn out as neatly as this – the effects are exactly as one would expect and are large in magnitude. If only all research projects turned out this way.


Meeting round-up: 7th Meeting of the International Academy of Health Preference Research

The 7th meeting of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) took place in Glasgow on Saturday 4th November 2017. The meeting was chaired by Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn and Terry Flynn. It was preceded by a Friday afternoon symposium on the econometrics of heterogeneity, which I was unable to attend.

IAHPR is a relatively new organisation, describing itself as an ‘international network of multilingual, multidisciplinary researchers who contribute to the field of health preference research’. To minimise participants’ travel costs, IAHPR meetings are usually scheduled alongside major international conferences such as the meetings of iHEA, EuHEA and AHES (the Australian Health Economics Society). The November meeting took place just before the kick-off of the ISPOR European Congress (a behemoth by comparison). Most, but not all, of the attendees I spoke to, said that they would also be attending the ISPOR Congress.

The meeting was attended by 49 researchers from nine different countries. Nine were from the US, 16 from the UK, and 22 from elsewhere in the EU (sadly, I won’t be able to use the phrase ‘elsewhere in the EU’ for much longer). Understandably, the regional representation of the Glasgow meeting was quite different from that of the (July 2017) Boston meeting, where over 60% of the participants were based in the US.


In total there were 12 podium presentations (half by student presenters) and about eight posters. Each podium presenter was allocated 12 minutes for their presentation and a further eight minutes for questions and group discussion. The poster authors were given the opportunity to briefly introduce themselves and their research to the group as part of an ‘elevator talks’ session.

Although all of the presentations focused on issues in stated preference research, the range of topics was quite broad, covering preferences between health outcomes, preferences between health services, conceptual and theoretical issues, experimental design approaches, and novel analytical techniques. Most of the studies presented applications of the DCE and best-worst scaling methods. Several presentations examined issues relating to preference heterogeneity and decision heuristics.

A personal highlight was Tabea Schmidt-Ott’s examination of the use of dominance tests to assess rational choice behaviour amongst survey respondents. She reported that such tests were included in a quarter of the health-related DCE studies published in 2015 (including many studies that had been led by IAHPR meeting attendees). Their inclusion had often been used to justify choices about which respondents to exclude from the final samples. Tabea concluded that dominance tests are a weak technique for assessing the rationality of people’s choice behaviour, as the observation of dominated choices can be explained by and accounted for in DCE models.

Overall, the IAHPR meeting was enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. The standard of the presentations and discussions was high, and it was a good forum for learning about the latest advances in stated preference research. It was quite DCE-dominated, so it would have been interesting to have had some representation from researchers who are sceptical about that methodology.

The next meeting will take place in Tasmania, to be chaired by Brendan Mulhern and Richard Norman.


Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 4th December 2017

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Funding breakthrough therapies: a systematic review and recommendation. Health Policy Published 2nd December 2017

One of the (numerous) financial pressures on health care funders in the West is the introduction of innovative (and generally very expensive) new therapies. Some of these can be considered curative, which isn’t necessarily the best way for manufacturers to create a steady income. New funding arrangements have been proposed to facilitate patient access while maintaining financial sustainability. This article focuses on a specific group of innovative therapies known as ‘Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products’ (ATMPs), which includes gene therapies. The authors conducted a systematic review of papers proposing funding models and considered their appropriateness for ATMPs. There were 48 papers included in the review that proposed payment mechanisms for high-cost therapies. Three top-level groups were identified: i) financial agreements, ii) performance-based agreements, and iii) healthcoin (a tradable currency representing the value of outcomes). The different mechanisms are compared in terms of their feasibility, acceptability, burden, ‘financial attractiveness’ and their appeal to payers and manufacturers. Annuity payments are identified as relatively attractive compared to other options, but each mechanism is summarily shown to be imperfect in the ATMP context. So, instead, the authors propose an ATMP-specific fund. For UK readers, this will likely smell a bit too much like the disastrous Cancer Drugs Fund. It isn’t clear why such a programme would be superior to annuity payments or more inventive mechanisms, or even whether it would be theoretically sound. Thus, the proposal is not convincing.

Supply-side effects from public insurance expansions: evidence from physician labor markets. Health Economics [PubMed] Published 1st December 2017

Crazy though American health care may be, its inconsistency in coverage can make for good research fodder. The Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was set up in 1997 and then, when the initial money ran out 10 years later, the program was (eventually) expanded. In this study, the authors use the changes in CHIP to examine the impact of expanded public coverage on provider behaviour, namely; subspecialty training (which could become more attractive with a well-insured customer base), practice setting and prevailing wage offers. The data for the study relate to the physician labour market for New York state for 2002-2013, as collected in the Graduate Medical Education survey. A simple difference-in-differences analysis is conducted with reference to the 2009 CHIP expansion, controlling for physician demographics. Paediatricians are the treatment group and the control group is adult physician generalists (mostly internal medicine). 2009 seems to be associated with a step-change in the proportion of paediatricians choosing to subspecialise – an increased probability of about 8 percentage points. There is also an upward shift in the proportion of paediatricians entering private practice, with some (weak) evidence that there is an increased preference for rural areas. These changes don’t seem to be driven by relative wage increases, with no major change in trends. So it seems that the expanded coverage did have important supply-side effects. But the waters are muddy here. In particular, we have the Great Recession and Obamacare as possible alternative explanations. Though it’s difficult to come up with good reasons for why these might better explain the observed changes.

Reflections on the NICE decision to reject patient production losses. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care [PubMedPublished 20th November 2017

When people conduct economic evaluations ‘from a societal perspective’, this often just means a health service perspective with productivity losses added. NICE explicitly exclude the inclusion of these production losses in health technology appraisals. This paper reviews the issues at play, focussing on the normative question of why they should (or should not) be included. Findings from a literature review are summarised with reference to the ethical, theoretical and policy questions. Unethical discrimination potentially occurs if people are denied health care on the basis of non-health-related characteristics, such as the ability to work. All else equal, should health care for men be prioritised over health care for women because men have higher wages? Are the unemployed less of a priority because they’re unemployed? The only basis on which to defend the efficiency of an approach that includes productivity losses seems to be a neoclassical welfarist one, which is hardly tenable in the context of health care. If we adopt the extra-welfarist understanding of opportunity cost as foregone health then there is really no place for production losses. The authors also argue that including production losses may be at odds with policy objectives, at least in the context of the NHS in the UK. Health systems based on privately-funded care or social insurance may have different priorities. The article concludes that taking account of production losses is at odds with the goal of health maximisation and therefore the purpose of the NHS in the UK. Personally, I think priority setting in health care should take a narrow health perspective. So I agree with the authors that production losses shouldn’t be included. I’m not sure this article will convince those who disagree, but it’s good to have a reference to vindicate NICE’s position.