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

Access to medicines and medical technologies for the global poor

The UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines recently published its long awaited report Promoting innovation and access to health technologies. The report explores and proposes some solutions to the well recognised problem of under-investment in research and development for new treatments for diseases that afflict the global poor. In the pharmaceutical market, innovation is directed to the areas that generate the highest returns. These market incentives explain why no new anti-tuberculosis drug has been developed since the 1960s. As a result, some of the WHO’s sustainable development goals (SDGs), such as to eradicate TB and malaria by 2030, look fanciful. To increase investment in research and development new incentive structures would need to be put in place.

Interventions already take place in the market to encourage R&D. Patents granting temporary monopolies are already widely used to allow companies to recoup the high costs of drug development. However, reported R&D costs, as we have previously discussed, are likely to be inflated to justify longer patent lengths. The UN report identifies other methods of ‘evergreening’ such as filing multiple patents for small variations of various drugs or patents for multiple indications of the same drug. The World Trade Organisation enforces strict US-style patent rights around the world, but it permits significant flexibility for granting patents. The report recommends punitive action against companies that pressure countries to use these flexibilities in their favour.

Relying on market incentives also leads to other adverse outcomes. The academic medical literature has become distorted. Industry funded research is more likely to find favourable outcomes. In some cases significant harms are not reported as the Vioxx scandal demonstrated. We have also previously reported on how policy uncertainty reduces pharmaceutical R&D. Thus, state involvement in the industry seems to be warranted.

Joseph Stiglitz proposed an international multi-billion dollar fund to reward drug innovations that did the most to improve public health. Other solutions proposed in the UN report are to prohibit patents on innovations resulting from publicly funded research, forcing private companies in the medical sector to disclose the true costs of R&D, and the public financing of biomedical R&D through transaction taxes and other mechanisms.

Some may worry that such restrictions and market distortions may significantly reduce private spending on medical R&D. But it should be noted that only around 14% of the industry’s budget goes towards R&D; a greater share is spent on marketing. However, as an editorial in the Lancet notes, these recommendations would require endorsement and adoption quickly as new legislation such as the trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) is gaining momentum, which will exacerbate the situation further.

Credits

Sam Watson’s journal round-up for 4th April 2016

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.

Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics [PubMedPublished 12th February 2016

This study is an update of the original study by DiMasi and colleagues, whose finding, published in an article in the Journal of Health Economics that the costs (in 2000 USD) of drug development were close to $1 billion, has achieved near canonical status. However, considerable doubt has been thrown on these claims, and the criticisms of the original study should be applied to this new research. Light and Warburton’s critique drew on a number of points: the lack of comparability and reliability about the original survey data as well as the lack of transparency (as the data were not made publically available); there was a clear interest for pharmaceutical companies to overstate their costs in survey responses; neither the firms nor the drugs considered were random samples; the only drugs considered in the study were “self-originated new chemical entities” (NCEs) whose costs of development are many times higher than acquired or licensed-in NCEs, new formulations, combinations, or administrations of existing drugs, and yet only comprise around 22% of new drug approvals; government subsidies were not deducted; and, there was no adjustment for tax deductions and credits, to name but a few. Articles in major journals based on industry sponsored research are three to four times more likely to report results favourable to the sponsors than articles with independent funding (see here and here). Considerable variation therefore exists in estimates of the costs of drug development. Light and Warburton have estimated the median figure to be roughly a tenth of the original DiMasi estimate. While this may seem implausibly low it certainly suggests we need to take industry sponsored research that affects health policy with a healthy dose of scepticism. The new estimate in this paper is $2.9 billion, but I’ll let you be the judge of its validity.

Outcomes in economic evaluations of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: health, capabilities and subjective wellbeing. Health Economics [PubMed]. Published 25th January 2016

This study forms part of a special issue of Health Economics on the subject of economic evaluation in low and middle income countries (LMICs) published recently. The whole special issue is worth a read, but here I’ll just outline one paper that discusses outcomes in the evaluation of public health interventions in LMICs. Public health interventions and other community based programs often aim to improve a number of aspects of people’s lives beyond health. The question of value is a growing topic in health economics. People have reason to value other outcomes such as knowledge, education, or liberty. For this reason QALYs or DALYs have been argued to not be well suited to the evaluation of public health interventions as they only capture health related changes to people’s lives. New approaches, such as the capabilities approach or subjective well-being, are therefore being developed. Subjective well-being may indeed fit into a more traditional welfarist approach to policy evaluation, which may be suitable in countries where cost-effectiveness thresholds have not been established. This paper provides some examples of these applications and discusses challenges to their use in LMICs.

Does introducing imprecision around probabilities for benefit and harm influence the way people value treatments? Medical Decision Making [PubMedPublished 31st March 2016

In many cases economic evaluation is concerned with estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a treatment or technology where both costs and benefits are considered at the patient level. This information can be used to inform clinical guidelines and recommendations. However, patients generally have a choice with regards to their treatment. When the costs or benefits of an intervention depend on the number of patients treated, such as may be the case with a structural health systems intervention, a public health intervention, or a treatment program, then patient choice and uptake affects the overall cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Methods for clinical trial design based upon the effects to patient choice have been previously published. This study here shows how the level of uncertainty involved and the way it is presented to patients impacts upon their choice of treatment.  Such information may prove useful to the evaluation of interventions where uptake matters and may serve to inform clinical trial design.