Alastair Canaway’s journal round-up for 27th November 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.

Elevated mortality among weekend hospital admissions is not associated with adoption of seven day clinical standards. Emergency Medicine Journal [PubMedPublished 8th November 2017

Our esteemed colleagues in Manchester brought more evidence to the seven-day NHS debate (debacle?). Patients who are admitted to hospital in an emergency at weekends have higher mortality rates than those during the week. Despite what our Secretary of State will have you believe, there is an increasing body of evidence suggesting that once case-mix is adequately adjusted for, the ‘weekend effect’ becomes negligible. This paper takes a slightly different angle for examining the same phenomenon. It harnesses the introduction of four priority clinical standards in England, which aim to reduce the number of deaths associated with the weekend effect. These are time to first consultant review; access to diagnostics; access to consultant-directed interventions; and on-going consultant review. The study uses publicly available data on the performance of NHS Trusts in relation to these four priority clinical standards. For the latest financial year (2015/16), Trusts’ weekend effect odds ratios were compared to their achievement against the four clinical standards. Data were available for 123 Trusts. The authors found that adoption of the four clinical standards was not associated with the extent to which mortality was elevated for patients admitted at the weekend. Furthermore, they found no association between the Trusts’ performance against any of the four standards and the magnitude of the weekend effect. The authors offer three reasons as to why this may be the case. First, data quality could be poor, second, it could be that the standards themselves are inadequate for reducing mortality, finally, it could be that the weekend effect in terms of mortality may be the wrong metric by which to judge the benefits of a seven-day service. They note that their previous research demonstrated that the weekend effect is driven by admission volumes at the weekend rather than the number of deaths, so it will not be impacted by care provision, and this is consistent with the findings in this study. The spectre of opportunity cost looms over the implementation of these standards; although no direct harm may arise from the introduction of these standards, resources will be diverted away from potentially more beneficial alternatives, this is a serious concern. The seven-day debate continues.

The effect of level overlap and color coding on attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments. Value in Health Published 16th November 2017

I think discrete choice experiments (DCE) are difficult to complete. That may be due to me not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, or it could be due to the nature of DCEs, or a bit of both. For this reason, I like best-worst scaling (BWS). BWS aside, DCEs are a common tool used in health economics research to assess and understand preferences. Given the difficulty of DCEs, people often resort to heuristics, that is, respondents often simplify choice tasks by taking shortcuts, e.g. ignoring one or more attribute (attribute non-attendance) or always selecting the option with the highest level of a certain attribute. This has downstream consequences leading to bias within preference estimates. Furthermore, difficulty with comprehension leads to high attrition rates. This RCT sought to examine whether participant dropout and attribute non-attendance could be reduced through two methods: level overlap, and colour coding. Level overlap refers to the DCE design whereby in each choice task a certain number of attributes are presented with the same level; in different choice tasks different attributes are overlapped. The idea of this is to prevent dominant attribute strategies whereby participants always choose the option with the highest level of one specific attribute and forces them to evaluate all attributes. The second method involves colour coding and the provision of other visual cues to reduce task complexity, e.g. colour coding levels to make it easy to see which levels are equal. There were five trial arms. The control arm featured no colour coding and no attribute overlap. The other four arms featured either colour coding (two different types were tested), attribute overlap, or a combination of them both. A nationally (Dutch) representative sample in relation to age, gender, education and geographic region were recruited online. In total 3394 respondents were recruited and each arm contained over 500 respondents. Familiarisation and warm-up questions were followed by 21 pairwise choice tasks in a randomised order. For the control arm (no overlap, no colour coding) 13.9% dropped out whilst only attending to on average 2.1 out of the five attributes. Colour coding reduced this to 9.6% with 2.8 attributes being attended. Combining level overlap with intensity colour coding reduced drop out further to 7.2% whilst increasing attribute attendance to four out of five. Thus, the combination of level overlap and colour coding nearly halved the dropout and doubled the attribute attendance within the DCE task. An additional, and perhaps most important benefit of the improvement in attribute attendance is that it reduces the need to model for potential attribute non-attendance post-hoc. Given the difficult of DCE completion, it seems colour coding in combination with level overlap should be implored for future DCE tasks.

Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 17th November 2017

There appears to be increasing recognition of the prevalence and seriousness of youth mental health problems. Nearly 20% of young people will suffer depression during their adolescent years. To facilitate cost-utility analysis it is necessary to have a measure of preference based health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, there are few measures designed for use in adolescents. This study sought to examine various existing HRQL measures in relation to their responsiveness for the evaluation of interventions targeting depression in young people. This builds on previous work conducted by Brazier et al that found the EQ-5D and SF-6D performed adequately for depression in adults. In total 392 adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years joined the study, 376 of these completed follow up assessments. Assessments were taken at baseline and 12 weeks. The justification for 12 weeks is that it represented the modal time to clinical change. The following utility instruments were included: the HUI suite, the EQ-5D-3L, Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and the SF-6D (derived from SF-36). Other non-preference based HRQL measures were also included: disease-specific ratings and scales, and the PedsQL 4.0. All (yes, you read that correctly) measures were found to be responsive to change in depression symptomology over the 12-week follow up period and each of the multi-attribute utility instruments was able to detect clinically meaningful change. In terms of comparing the utility instruments, the HUI-3, the QWB and the SF-6D were the most responsive whilst the EQ-5D-3L was the least responsive. In summary, any of the utility instruments could be used. One area of disappointment for me was that the CHU-9D was not included within this study – it’s one of the few instruments that has been developed by and for children and would have very much been a worthy addition. Regardless, this is an informative study for those of us working within the youth mental health sphere.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 20th November 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.

Effects of health and social care spending constraints on mortality in England: a time trend analysis. BMJ Open [PubMed] Published 15th November 2017

I’d hazard a guess that I’m not the only one here who gets angry about the politics of austerity. Having seen this study’s title, it’s clear that the research could provide fuel for that anger. It doesn’t disappoint. Recent years have seen very low year-on-year increases in public expenditure on health in England. Even worse, between 2010 and 2014, public expenditure on social care actually fell in real terms. This is despite growing need for health and social care. In this study, the authors look at health and social care spending and try to estimate the impact that reduced expenditure has had on mortality in England. The analysis uses spending and mortality data from 2001 onwards and also incorporates mortality projections for 2015-2020. Time trend analyses are conducted using Poisson regression models. From 2001-2010, deaths decreased by 0.77% per year (on average). The mortality rate was falling. Now it seems to be increasing; from 2011-2014, the average number of deaths per year increased by 0.87%. This corresponds to 18,324 additional deaths in 2014, for example. But everybody dies. Extra deaths are really sooner deaths. So the question, really, is how much sooner? The authors look at potential years of life lost and find this figure to be 75,496 life-years greater than expected in 2014, given pre-2010 trends. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Spending less generally achieves less. What makes this study really interesting is that it can tell us who is losing these potential years of life as a result of spending cuts. The authors find that it’s the over-60s. Care home deaths were the largest contributor to increased mortality. A £10 cut in social care spending per capita resulted in 5 additional care home deaths per 100,000 people. When the authors looked at deaths by local area, no association was found with the level of deprivation. If health and social care expenditure are combined in a single model, we see that it’s social care spending that is driving the number of excess deaths. The impact of health spending on hospital deaths was less robust. The number of nurses acted as a mediator for the relationship between spending and mortality. The authors estimate that current spending projections will result in 150,000 additional deaths compared with pre-2010 trends. There are plenty of limitations to this study. It’s pretty much impossible (though the authors do try) to separate the effects of austerity from the effect of a weak economy. Still, I’m satisfied with the conclusion that austerity kills older people (no jokes about turkeys and Christmas, please). For me, the findings also highlight the need for more research in the context of social care, and how we (as researchers) might effectively direct policy to prevent ‘excess’ deaths.

Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs? BMJ [PubMed] Published 10th November 2017

The question of whether or not ‘unrelated’ future medical costs should be included in economic evaluation is becoming a hot topic. So much so that the BMJ has published this Head To Head, which introduces some of the arguments for and against. NICE currently recommends excluding unrelated future medical costs. An example given in this article is the case of the expected costs of dementia care having saved someone’s life by heart transplantation. The argument in favour of including unrelated costs is quite obvious – these costs can’t be ignored if we seek to maximise social welfare. Their inclusion is described as “not difficult” by the authors defending this move. By ignoring unrelated future costs (but accounting for the benefit of longer life), the relative cost-effectiveness of life-extending treatments, compared with life-improving treatments, is artificially inflated. The argument against including unrelated medical costs is presented as one of fairness. The author suggests that their inclusion could preclude access to health care for certain groups of people that are likely to have high needs in the future. So perhaps NICE should ignore unrelated medical costs in certain circumstances. I sympathise with this view, but I feel it is less a fairness issue and more a demonstration of the current limits of health-related quality of life measurement, which don’t reflect adaptation and coping. However, I tend to disagree with both of the arguments presented here. I really don’t think NICE should include or exclude unrelated future medical costs according to the context because that could create some very perverse incentives for certain stakeholders. But then, I do not agree that it is “not difficult” to include all unrelated future costs. ‘All’ is an important qualifier here because the capacity for analysts to pick and choose unrelated future costs creates the potential to pick and choose results. When it comes to unrelated future medical costs, NICE’s position needs to be all-or-nothing, and right now the ‘all’ bit is a high bar to clear. NICE should include unrelated future medical costs – it’s difficult to formulate a sound argument against that – but they should only do so once more groundwork has been done. In particular, we need to develop more valid methods for valuing quality of life against life-years in health technology assessment across different patient groups. And we need more reliable methods for estimating future medical costs in all settings.

Oncology modeling for fun and profit! Key steps for busy analysts in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics [PubMed] Published 6th November 2017

Quite a title(!). The subject of this essay is ‘partitioned survival modelling’. Honestly,  I never really knew what that was until I read this article. It seems the reason for my ignorance could be that I haven’t worked on the evaluation of cancer treatments, for which it’s a popular methodology. Apparently, a recent study found that almost 75% of NICE cancer drug appraisals were informed by this sort of analysis. Partitioned survival modelling is a simple means by which to extrapolate outcomes in a context where people can survive (or not) with or without progression. Often this can be on the basis of survival analyses and standard trial endpoints. This article seeks to provide some guidance on the development and use of partitioned survival models. Or, rather, it provides a toolkit for calling out those who might seek to use the method as a means of providing favourable results for a new therapy when data and analytical resources are lacking. The ‘key steps’ can be summarised as 1) avoiding/ignoring/misrepresenting current standards of economic evaluation, 2) using handpicked parametric approaches for extrapolation in order to maximise survival benefits, 3) creatively estimating relative treatment effects using indirect comparisons without adjustment, 4) make optimistic assumptions about post-progression outcomes, and 5) deny the possibility of any structural uncertainty. The authors illustrate just how much an analyst can influence the results of an evaluation (if they want to “keep ICERs in the sweet spot!”). Generally, these tactics move the model far from being representative of reality. However, the prevailing secrecy around most models means that it isn’t always easy to detect these shortcomings. Sometimes it is though, and the authors make explicit reference to technology appraisals that they suggest demonstrate these crimes. Brilliant!

Credits

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