Sam Watson’s journal round-up for 2nd October 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.

The path to longer and healthier lives for all Africans by 2030: the Lancet Commission on the future of health in sub-Saharan Africa. The Lancet [PubMedPublished 13th September 2017

The African continent has the highest rates of economic growth, the fastest growing populations and rates of urbanisation, but also the highest burden of disease. The challenges for public health and health care provision are great. It is no surprise then that this Lancet commission on the future of health in Sub-Saharan Africa runs to 57 pages yet still has some notable absences. In the space of a few hundred words, it would be impossible to fully discuss the topics in this tome, these will appear in future blog posts. For now, I want to briefly discuss a lack of consideration of the importance of political economy in the Commission’s report. For example, the report notes the damaging effects of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs in the 70s and 80s. These led to a dismantling of much of the public sector in indebted African nations in order for them to qualify for further loans. However, these issues have not gone away. Despite strongly emphasizing that countries in Africa must increase their health spending, it does not mention that many countries spend much more servicing debt than on public health and health care. Kenya, for example, will soon no longer qualify for aid as it becomes a middle-income country, and yet it spends almost double (around $6 billion) servicing its debt than it does on health care (around $3 billion). Debt reform and relief may be a major step towards increasing health expenditure. The inequalities in access to basic health services reflect the disparities in income and wealth both between and within countries. The growth of slums across the continent is stark evidence of this. Residents of these communities, despite often facing the worst exposure to major disease risk factors, are often not recognised by authorities and cannot access health services. Even where health services are available there are still difficulties with access. A lack of regulation and oversight can lead the growth of a rentier class within slums as those with access to small amounts of capital, land, or property act as petty landlords. So while some in slum areas can afford the fees for basic health services, the poorest still face a barrier even when services are available. These people are also those who have little access to decent water and sanitation or education and have the highest risk of disease. Finally, the lack of incentives for trained doctors and medical staff to work in poor or rural areas is also identified as a key problem. Many doctors either leave for wealthier countries or work in urban areas. Doctors are often a powerful interest group and can influence macro health policy, distorting it to favour richer urban areas. Political solutions are required, as well as the public health interventions more widely discussed. The Commission’s report is extensive and worth the time to read for anyone with an interest in the subject matter. What also becomes clear upon reading it is the lack of solid evidence on health systems and what works and does not work. From an economic perspective, much of the evidence pertaining to health system functioning and efficiency is still just the results from country-level panel data regressions, which tell us very little about what is actually happening. This results in us being able to identify areas needed for reform with very little idea of how.

The relationship of health insurance and mortality: is lack of insurance deadly? Annals of Internal Medicine [PubMedPublished 19th September 2017

One sure-fire way of increasing your chances of publishing in a top-ranked journal is to do something on a hot political topic. In the UK this has been seven-day services, as well as other issues relating to deficiencies of supply. In the US, health insurance is right up there with the Republicans trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. This paper systematically reviews the literature on the relationship between health insurance coverage and the risk of mortality. The theory being that health insurance permits access to medical services and therefore treatment and prevention measures that reduce the risk of death. Many readers will be familiar with the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, in which the US state of Oregon distributed access to increased Medicaid expansion by lottery, therein creating an RCT. This experiment, which takes a top spot in the review, estimated that those who had ‘won’ the lottery had a mortality rate 0.032 percentage points lower than the ‘losers’, whose mortality rate was 0.8%; a relative reduction of around 4%. Similar results were found for the quasi-experimental studies included, and slightly larger effects were found in cohort follow-up studies. These effects are small. But then so is the baseline. Most of these studies only examined non-elderly, non-disabled people, who would otherwise not qualify for any other public health insurance. For people under 45 in the US, the leading cause of death is unintentional injury, and its only above this age that cancer becomes the leading cause of death. If you suffer major trauma in the US you will (for the most part) be treated in an ER insured or uninsured, even if you end up with a large bill afterwards. So it’s no surprise that the effects of insurance coverage on mortality are very small for these people. This is probably the inappropriate endpoint to be looking at for this study. Indeed, the Oregon experiment found that the biggest differences were in reduced out-of-pocket expenses and medical debt, and improved self-reported health. The review’s conclusion that, “The odds of dying among the insured relative to the uninsured is 0.71 to 0.97,” is seemingly unwarranted. If they want to make a political point about the need for insurance, they’re looking in the wrong place.

Smoking, expectations, and health: a dynamic stochastic model of lifetime smoking behavior. Journal of Political Economy [RePEcPublished 24th August 2017

I’ve long been sceptical of mathematical models of complex health behaviours. The most egregious of which is often the ‘rational addiction’ literature. Originating with the late Gary Becker, the rational addiction model, in essence, assumes that addiction is a rational choice made by utility maximising individuals, whose preferences alter with use of a particular drug. The biggest problem I find with this approach is that it is completely out of touch with the reality of addiction and drug dependence, and makes absurd assumptions about the preferences of addicts. Nevertheless, it has spawned a sizable literature. And, one may argue that the model is useful if it makes accurate predictions, regardless of the assumptions underlying it. On this front, I have yet to be convinced. This paper builds a rational addiction-type model for smoking to examine whether learning of one’s health risks reduces smoking. As an illustration of why I dislike this method of understanding addictive behaviours, the authors note that “…the model cannot explain why individuals start smoking. […] The estimated preference parameters in the absence of a chronic illness suggest that, for a never smoker under the age of 25, there is no incentive to begin smoking because the marginal utility of smoking is negative.” But for many, social and cultural factors simply explain why young people start smoking. The weakness of the deductive approach to social science seems to rear its head, but like I said, the aim here may be the development of good predictive models. And, the model does appear to predict smoking behaviour well. However, it is all in-sample prediction, and with the number of parameters it is not surprising it predicts well. This discussion is not meant to be completely excoriating. What is interesting is the discussion and attempt to deal with the endogeneity of smoking – people in poor health may be more likely to smoke and so the estimated effects of smoking on longevity may be overestimated. As a final point of contention though, I’m still trying to work out what the “addictive stock of smoking capital” is.

Credits

Hawking is right, Jeremy Hunt does egregiously cherry pick the evidence

I’m beginning to think Jeremy Hunt doesn’t actually care what the evidence says on the weekend effect. Last week, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking criticized Hunt for ‘cherry picking’ evidence with regard to the ‘weekend effect’: that patients admitted at the weekend are observed to be more likely than their counterparts admitted on a weekday to die. Hunt responded by doubling down on his claims:

Some people have questioned Hawking’s credentials to speak on the topic beyond being a user of the NHS. But it has taken a respected public figure to speak out to elicit a response from the Secretary of State for Health, and that should be welcomed. It remains the case though that a multitude of experts do continue to be ignored. Even the oft-quoted Freemantle paper is partially ignored where it notes of the ‘excess’ weekend deaths, “to assume that [these deaths] are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”

We produced a simple tool to demonstrate how weekend effect studies might estimate an increased risk of mortality associated with weekend admissions even in the case of no difference in care quality. However, the causal model underlying these arguments is not always obvious. So here it is:

weekend

A simple model of the effect of the weekend on patient health outcomes. The dashed line represents unobserved effects

 

So what do we know about the weekend effect?

  1. The weekend effect exists. A multitude of studies have observed that patients admitted at the weekend are more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday. This amounts to having shown that E(Y|W,S) \neq E(Y|W',S). As our causal model demonstrates, being admitted is correlated with health and, importantly, the day of the week. So, this is not the same as saying that risk of adverse clinical outcomes differs by day of the week if you take into account propensity for admission, we can’t say E(Y|W) \neq E(Y|W'). Nor does this evidence imply care quality differs at the weekend, E(Q|W) \neq E(Q|W'). In fact, the evidence only implies differences in care quality if the propensity to be admitted is independent of (unobserved) health status, i.e. Pr(S|U,X) = Pr(S|X) (or if health outcomes are uncorrelated with health status, which is definitely not the case!).
  2. Admissions are different at the weekend. Fewer patients are admitted at the weekend and those that are admitted are on average more severely unwell. Evidence suggests that the better patient severity is controlled for, the smaller the estimated weekend effect. Weekend effect estimates also diminish in models that account for the selection mechanism.
  3. There is some evidence that care quality may be worse at the weekend (at least in the United States). So E(Q|W) \neq E(Q|W'). Although this has not been established in the UK (we’re currently investigating it!)
  4. Staffing levels, particularly specialist to patient ratios, are different at the weekend, E(X|W) \neq E(X|W').
  5. There is little evidence to suggest how staffing levels and care quality are related. While the relationship seems evident prima facie, its extent is not well understood, for example, we might expect a diminishing return to increased staffing levels.
  6. There is a reasonable amount of evidence on the impact of care quality (preventable errors and adverse events) on patient health outcomes.

But what are we actually interested in from a policy perspective? Do we actually care that it is the weekend per se? I would say no, we care that there is potentially a lapse in care quality. So, it’s a two part question: (i) how does care quality (and hence avoidable patient harm) differ at the weekend E(Q|W) - E(Q|W') = ?; and (ii) what effect does this have on patient outcomes E(Y|Q)=?. The first question answers to what extent policy may affect change and the second gives us a way of valuing that change and yet the vast majority of studies in the area address neither. Despite there being a number of publicly funded research projects looking at these questions right now, it’s the studies that are not useful for policy that keep being quoted by those with the power to make change.

Hawking is right, Jeremy Hunt has egregiously cherry picked and misrepresented the evidence, as has been pointed out again and again and again and again and … One begins to wonder if there isn’t some motive other than ensuring long run efficiency and equity in the health service.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 22nd May 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.

The effect of health care expenditure on patient outcomes: evidence from English neonatal care. Health Economics [PubMed] Published 12th May 2017

Recently, people have started trying to identify opportunity cost in the NHS, by assessing the health gains associated with current spending. Studies have thrown up a wide range of values in different clinical areas, including in neonatal care. This study uses individual-level data for infants treated in 32 neonatal intensive care units from 2009-2013, along with the NHS Reference Cost for an intensive care cot day. A model is constructed to assess the impact of changes in expenditure, controlling for a variety of variables available in the National Neonatal Research Database. Two outcomes are considered: the in-hospital mortality rate and morbidity-free survival. The main finding is that a £100 increase in the cost per cot day is associated with a reduction in the mortality rate of 0.36 percentage points. This translates into a marginal cost per infant life saved of around £420,000. Assuming an average life expectancy of 81 years, this equates to a present value cost per life year gained of £15,200. Reductions in the mortality rate are associated with similar increases in morbidity. The estimated cost contradicts a much higher estimate presented in the Claxton et al modern classic on searching for the threshold.

A comparison of four software programs for implementing decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics [PubMed] Published 9th May 2017

Markov models: TreeAge vs Excel vs R vs MATLAB. This paper compares the alternative programs in terms of transparency and validation, the associated learning curve, capability, processing speed and cost. A benchmarking assessment is conducted using a previously published model (originally developed in TreeAge). Excel is rightly identified as the ‘ubiquitous workhorse’ of cost-effectiveness modelling. It’s transparent in theory, but in practice can include cell relations that are difficult to disentangle. TreeAge, on the other hand, includes valuable features to aid model transparency and validation, though the workings of the software itself are not always clear. Being based on programming languages, MATLAB and R may be entirely transparent but challenging to validate. The authors assert that TreeAge is the easiest to learn due to its graphical nature and the availability of training options. Save for complex VBA, Excel is also simple to learn. R and MATLAB are equivalently more difficult to learn, but clearly worth the time saving for anybody expecting to work on multiple complex modelling studies. R and MATLAB both come top in terms of capability, with Excel falling behind due to having fewer statistical facilities. TreeAge has clearly defined capabilities limited to the features that the company chooses to support. MATLAB and R were both able to complete 10,000 simulations in a matter of seconds, while Excel took 15 minutes and TreeAge took over 4 hours. For a value of information analysis requiring 1000 runs, this could translate into 6 months for TreeAge! MATLAB has some advantage over R in processing time that might make its cost ($500 for academics) worthwhile to some. Excel and TreeAge are both identified as particularly useful as educational tools for people getting to grips with the concepts of decision modelling. Though the take-home message for me is that I really need to learn R.

Economic evaluation of factorial randomised controlled trials: challenges, methods and recommendations. Statistics in Medicine [PubMed] Published 3rd May 2017

Factorial trials randomise participants to at least 2 alternative levels (for example, different doses) of at least 2 alternative treatments (possibly in combination). Very little has been written about how economic evaluations ought to be conducted alongside such trials. This study starts by outlining some key challenges for economic evaluation in this context. First, there may be interactions between combined therapies, which might exist for costs and QALYs even if not for the primary clinical endpoint. Second, transformation of the data may not be straightforward, for example, it may not be possible to disaggregate a net benefit estimation with its components using alternative transformations. Third, regression analysis of factorial trials may be tricky for the purpose of constructing CEACs and conducting value of information analysis. Finally, defining the study question may not be simple. The authors simulate a 2×2 factorial trial (0 vs A vs B vs A+B) to demonstrate these challenges. The first analysis compares A and B against placebo separately in what’s known as an ‘at-the-margins’ approach. Both A and B are shown to be cost-effective, with the implication that A+B should be provided. The next analysis uses regression, with interaction terms demonstrating the unlikelihood of being statistically significant for costs or net benefit. ‘Inside-the-table’ analysis is used to separately evaluate the 4 alternative treatments, with an associated loss in statistical power. The findings of this analysis contradict the findings of the at-the-margins analysis. A variety of regression-based analyses is presented, with the discussion focussed on the variability in the estimated standard errors and the implications of this for value of information analysis. The authors then go on to present their conception of the ‘opportunity cost of ignoring interactions’ as a new basis for value of information analysis. A set of 14 recommendations is provided for people conducting economic evaluations alongside factorial trials, which could be used as a bolt-on to CHEERS and CONSORT guidelines.

Credits