Thesis Thursday: Estela Capelas Barbosa

On the third Thursday of every month, we speak to a recent graduate about their thesis and their studies. This month’s guest is Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa who graduated with a PhD from the University of York. If you would like to suggest a candidate for an upcoming Thesis Thursday, get in touch.

Title
Overall unfair inequality in health care: an application to Brazil
Supervisor
Richard Cookson
Repository link
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16649/

What’s the difference between fair and unfair inequality, and why is it important to distinguish the two?

Not all inequality is the same. Whilst most inequality in health and health care is unwanted, one could argue that some inequality is even desirable. For example, we all agree that women should receive more care than men because they have a higher need for health care. The same argument could be used for children. Therefore, when looking into inequality, from a philosophical point of view, it is important to distinguish between inequality that is deemed fair (as in my women’s example) and that considered unfair. But there is a catch! Because ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ are normative value judgements, different people may have different views as to what is fair or unfair. That’s why, in the thesis, I worked hard to come up with a framework that was flexible enough to allow for different views of fair and unfair.

Your thesis describes a novel way of thinking about inequality. What led you to believe that other conceptualisations were inadequate?

Previously, inequality in health care was either dealt with in overall terms, using a Gini coefficient type of analysis, or focused on income and socioeconomic inequality (see Wagstaff and Van Doorslaer, 2004). As a field researcher in Brazil, I had first-hand experience that there was more to unfair inequality than income. I remember personally meeting a very wealthy man that had many difficulties in accessing the healthcare system simply because he lived in a very remote rural area of the country. I wanted to better understand this and look beyond income to explain inequality in Brazil. Thus, neither of the well-established methods seemed really appropriate for my analysis. I knew I could adjust my Gini for need, but this type of analysis did not explicitly allow for a distinction between unfair and fair inequality. At the other extreme, income-related inequality was just a very narrow definition of unfairness. Although the established methods were my starting point, I agreed with Fleurbaey and Schokkaert that there could be yet another way of looking at inequality in health care, and I drew inspiration from their proposed method for health and made adjustments and modifications for the application to health care.

What were some of your key findings about the sources of inequality, and how were they measured in your data?

I guess my most important finding is that the sources of unfair inequality have changed between 1998 and 2013. For example, the contribution of income to unfair inequality decreased in this time for physician visits and mammography screening, yet for cervical screening it nearly doubled between 2003 and 2013. I have also found that there are other sources of inequality which are important (sometimes even more than income), as for example having private health insurance, education, living in urban areas and region.

As to my data, it came from Health Supplement of the Brazilian National Household Sample Survey for the years 1998, 2003 and 2008 and the first National Health Survey, conducted in 2013 (see www.ibge.gov.br). The surveys use standardised questionnaires and rely on self-report for most questions, particularly those related to health care coverage and health status.

Your analysis looks at a relatively long period of time. What can you tell us about long-term trends in Brazil?

It is difficult to talk about long-term trends in Brazil at the moment. Our (universal) healthcare system has only been in place since 1988 and, since the last wave of data (in 2013), there has been a strong political movement to dismantle the national system and sell it to the private sector. I guess the movement to reduce and/or privatise the NHS also exists here, but, unlike in the UK, our national system has always been massively under-resourced, so it is not as highly-regarded by the population.

Having said that, it is fair to say that in its first 25 years of existence, Brazil has accomplished a lot in terms of healthcare (I have described – in Portuguese – some of the achievements and challenges). The Brazilian National Health System covers over 200 million people and accounts for nearly 500 thousand hospital beds. In terms of inequality, over time, it has decreased for physician visits and cervical screening, though for mammography there is no clear trend.

What would you like to see policymakers in Brazil prioritise in respect to reducing inequality?

First and foremost, I would like policymakers to understand that over three-quarters of the Brazilian population relies on the national system as their one and only health care provider. Second, I would like to reinforce the idea that social inequality in health care in Brazil is not only and indeed not primarily related to income. In fact, other social variables such as education, region, urban or rural residency and health insurance status are as important or even more important than income. This implies that there are supply side actions that can be taken, which should be much easier to implement. For example, more health care equipment, such as MRIs and CT scanners could be purchased for the North and Northeast regions. This could potentially reduce unfair inequality. Policies can also be directed at improving access to care in rural regions, although this factor is not as important a contributor to inequality as it used to be. I guess the overall message is: there are several things that can be done to reduce unfair inequality in Brazil, but all depend on political will and understanding the importance of the healthcare system for the health of the population.

Advertisements

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 14th August 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.

Does paying service providers by results improve recovery outcomes for drug misusers in treatment in England? Addiction [PubMedPublished 10th August 2017

‘Getting what you pay for’ is a fundamentally attractive funding model, which is why we see lots of pay for performance (P4P) initiatives cropping up in the NHS. But P4P plans can go awry. This study considers an experimental setting in which 8 areas participated in P4P pilots for drug misuse treatment, from 2012-2014. Payments were aligned with 3 national priorities: i) abstinence, ii) reduced offending and iii) improved health and well-being. The participating areas allocated differing proportions of payments to the P4P model, between 10% and 100%. Data were drawn from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System, which includes information on drug use, assessment and interventions received. Other national sources were used to identify criminal activity and mortality rates. Drug misusers attending treatment services during the 2 years before and after the introduction of the P4P scheme were included in the study. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, the researchers compared outcomes in the 8 participating areas with those in 143 non-participating areas. Separate multilevel regression models were used for a set of outcomes, each controlling for a variety of individual-level characteristics. The authors analysed ‘treatment journeys’, of which there were around 20,000 for those in participating areas and 280,000 for those in non-participating areas; roughly half before the introduction and half after. The results don’t look good for P4P. Use of opiates, crack cocaine and injecting increased. Treatment initiation increased in non-participating areas but decreased in participating areas. Moreover, longer waiting times were observed in participating areas as well as more unplanned discharges. P4P was associated with people being less likely to successfully complete treatment within 12 months. In P4P’s favour, there was evidence that abstinence increased. I’d’ve liked to have seen some attempt at matching between the areas, given that there was an element of self-selection into the scheme. Or at least, better control for the characteristics of the areas before P4P was introduced. This paper isn’t quite the final nail in the coffin. I don’t see P4P disappearing anytime soon. There’s a lot to be learnt from the paper’s discussion, which outlines some of the likely reasons and mechanisms underlying the findings. Commissioners should take note.

The short- and long-run effects of smoking cessation on alcohol consumption. International Journal of Health Economics and Management [PubMedPublished 7th August 2017

Anecdotally, it seems as if smoking and drinking are complementary behaviours. Generally, the evidence suggests that this is true. Smoking cessation programmes may, therefore, have value in their ability to reduce alcohol consumption (and vice versa). But only if the relationship is causal. This study seeks to add to that causal evidence. Using data from 5887 individuals in the Lung Health Study, the author runs a two-stage least squares estimation, with randomisation to smoking cessation treatment as an instrumental variable for smoking status. In the short term, there is some evidence that smokers tend to drink more (especially men). But findings in the longer term, up to 5 years, are more persuasive. It’s unfortunate that the (largely incoherent) rational addiction theory makes an appearance and that the findings are presented as supportive of it. A stopped clock is right twice a day. In line with rational addiction theory, the long-term relationship is measured in terms of a ‘smoking stock’, which is an aggregate measure of smoking behaviour over the 5 year period. Smoking and drinking are found to be complementary in the long term. Crucially, the extent of their complementarity is associated with particular factors. For example, people who smoke more cigarettes or who abstain for longer exhibit larger reductions in alcohol consumption when they stop smoking. People who smoke relatively few cigarettes per day do not drink more alcohol. Those smoking 6-10 per day consume around 1 extra drink per week compared with non-smokers. Quitting for 5 years can reduce alcohol consumption by more than 50%. In the long run, the effect is more pronounced for women and for people who are married. This highlights important opportunities for targeted public policy, which could achieve a win-win in terms of reducing both cigarette and alcohol consumption.

Time for a change in how new antibiotics are reimbursed: development of an insurance framework for funding new antibiotics based on a policy of risk mitigation. Health Policy Published 5th August 2017

Antibiotics have become a key component of health care, but antimicrobial resistance threatens their usefulness and we don’t see new antibiotics in the pipeline to help overcome this. It’s a fundamentally difficult problem; we want new antibiotics but we want to use them as sparingly as possible. Antibiotic development is relatively unattractive (financially) to pharmaceutical companies. Provision of research funding and regulatory changes haven’t solved the problem to date. This paper considers why this might be the case, and explores 2 alternative approaches: a premium price model and an insurance-type model. Essentially, the authors conduct a spreadsheet analysis to compare the alternative models with a base case of no incentives. The expected net present value of the base case was negative (to the tune of about $1.5 billion), demonstrating why much-needed new antibiotics aren’t being developed. Current incentives – including public-private funding partnerships and market exclusivity – are also shown to fail to reach a positive net present value. The premium price model, whereby there is an enhanced price per unit, is not particularly attractive. The daily cost of the resulting antibiotics would likely be too high, and manufacturers’ pursuit of profit would be at odds with conservative prescribing. Furthermore, it exposes areas experiencing outbreaks to serious financial risk. The insurance model, which involved an annual fee paid by each healthcare system (to manufacturers), is more promising. Pharmaceutical companies would be insured against low prices and variable use and health systems would be insured against a lack of antibiotics and the risk of an infection outbreak. The key feature here is that manufacturers’ revenues are de-linked from sales volume. This is important when we consider the need for conservative prescribing. The authors estimate that the necessary fee (for the global market) would be around $262 million per year, or $114 million if combined with current funding and regulatory incentives. Of course, these findings are based on major assumptions about infection rates, research costs and plenty besides. A number of sensitivity analyses are conducted that highlight uncertainty about what the insurance fee might need to be in the future. I think this uncertainty is somewhat understated – there are far more sensitivity and scenario analyses that would be warranted if such a policy were being seriously considered. Nevertheless, pooling risk in an insurance model looks like a promising strategy that’s worthy of further investigation and piloting.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 31st July 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.

An exploratory study on using principal-component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify bolt-on dimensions: the EQ-5D case study. Value in Health Published 14th July 2017

I’m not convinced by the idea of using bolt-on dimensions for multi-attribute utility instruments. A state description with a bolt-on refers to a different evaluative space, and therefore is not comparable with the progenitor, thus undermining its purpose. Maybe this study will persuade me otherwise. The authors analyse data from the Multi Instrument Comparison database, including responses to EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI3, AQoL 8D and 15D questionnaires, as well as the ICECAP and 3 measures of subjective well-being. Content analysis was used to allocate items from the measures to underlying constructs of health-related quality of life. The sample of 8022 was randomly split, with one half used for principal-component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, and the other used for validation. This approach looks at the underlying constructs associated with health-related quality of life and the extent to which individual items from the questionnaires influence them. Candidate items for bolt-ons are those items from questionnaires other than the EQ-5D that are important and not otherwise captured by the EQ-5D questions. The principal-component analysis supported a 9-component model: physical functioning, psychological symptoms, satisfaction, pain, relationships, speech/cognition, hearing, energy/sleep and vision. The EQ-5D only covered physical functioning, psychological symptoms and pain. Therefore, items from measures that explain the other 6 components represent bolt-on candidates for the EQ-5D. This study succeeds in its aim. It demonstrates what appears to be a meaningful quantitative approach to identifying items not fully captured by the EQ-5D, which might be added as bolt-ons. But it doesn’t answer the question of which (if any) of these bolt-ons ought to be added, or in what circumstances. That would at least require pre-definition of the evaluative space, which might not correspond to the authors’ chosen model of health-related quality of life. If it does, then these findings would be more persuasive as a reason to do away with the EQ-5D altogether.

Endogenous information, adverse selection, and prevention: implications for genetic testing policy. Journal of Health Economics Published 13th July 2017

If you can afford it, there are all sorts of genetic tests available nowadays. Some of them could provide valuable information about the risk of particular health problems in the future. Therefore, they can be used to guide individuals’ decisions about preventive care. But if the individual’s health care is financed through insurance, that same information could prove costly. It could reinforce that classic asymmetry of information and adverse selection problem. So we need policy that deals with this. This study considers the incentives and insurance market outcomes associated with four policy options: i) mandatory disclosure of test results, ii) voluntary disclosure, iii) insurers knowing the test was taken, but not the results and iv) complete ban on the use of test information by insurers. The authors describe a utility model that incorporates the use of prevention technologies, and available insurance contracts, amongst people who are informed or uninformed (according to whether they have taken a test) and high or low risk (according to test results). This is used to estimate the value of taking a genetic test, which differs under the four different policy options. Under voluntary disclosure, the information from a genetic test always has non-negative value to the individual, who can choose to only tell their insurer if it’s favourable. The analysis shows that, in terms of social welfare, mandatory disclosure is expected to be optimal, while an information ban is dominated by all other options. These findings are in line with previous studies, which were less generalisable according to the authors. In the introduction, the authors state that “ethical issues are beyond the scope of this paper”. That’s kind of a problem. I doubt anybody who supports an information ban does so on the basis that they think it will maximise social welfare in the fashion described in this paper. More likely, they’re worried about the inequities in health that mandatory disclosure could reinforce, about which this study tells us nothing. Still, an information ban seems to be a popular policy, and studies like this indicate that such decisions should be reconsidered in light of their expected impact on social welfare.

Returns to scientific publications for pharmaceutical products in the United States. Health Economics [PubMedPublished 10th July 2017

Publication bias is a big problem. Part of the cause is that pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to publish negative findings for their own products. Though positive findings may be valuable in terms of sales. As usual, it isn’t quite that simple when you really think about it. This study looks at the effect of publications on revenue for 20 branded drugs in 3 markets – statins, rheumatoid arthritis and asthma – using an ‘event-study’ approach. The authors analyse a panel of quarterly US sales data from 2003-2013 alongside publications identified through literature searches and several drug- and market-specific covariates. Effects are estimated using first difference and difference in first difference models. The authors hypothesise that publications should have an important impact on sales in markets with high generic competition, and less in those without or with high branded competition. Essentially, this is what they find. For statins and asthma drugs, where there was some competition, clinical studies in high-impact journals increased sales to the tune of $8 million per publication. For statins, volume was not significantly affected, with mediation through price. In rhematoid arthritis, where competition is limited, the effect on sales was mediated by the effect on volume. Studies published in lower impact journals seemed to have a negative influence. Cost-effectiveness studies were only important in the market with high generic competition, increasing statin sales by $2.2 million on average. I’d imagine that these impacts are something with which firms already have a reasonable grasp. But this study provides value to public policy decision makers. It highlights those situations in which we might expect manufacturers to publish evidence and those in which it might be worthwhile increasing public investment to pick up the slack. It could also help identify where publication bias might be a bigger problem due to the incentives faced by pharmaceutical companies.

Credits