James Lomas’s journal round-up for 21st May 2018

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.

Decision making for healthcare resource allocation: joint v. separate decisions on interacting interventions. Medical Decision Making [PubMed] Published 23rd April 2018

While it may be uncontroversial that including all of the relevant comparators in an economic evaluation is crucial, a careful examination of this statement raises some interesting questions. Which comparators are relevant? For those that are relevant, how crucial is it that they are not excluded? The answer to the first of these questions may seem obvious, that all feasible mutually exclusive interventions should be compared, but this is in fact deceptive. Dakin and Gray highlight inconsistency between guidelines as to what constitutes interventions that are ‘mutually exclusive’ and so try to re-frame the distinction according to whether interventions are ‘incompatible’ – when it is physically impossible to implement both interventions simultaneously – and, if not, whether interventions are ‘interacting’ – where the costs and effects of the simultaneous implementation of A and B do not equal the sum of these parts. What I really like about this paper is that it has a very pragmatic focus. Inspired by policy arrangements, for example single technology appraisals, and the difficulty in capturing all interactions, Dakin and Gray provide a reader-friendly flow diagram to illustrate cases where excluding interacting interventions from a joint evaluation is likely to have a big impact, and furthermore propose a sequencing approach that avoids the major problems in evaluating separately what should be considered jointly. Essentially when we have interacting interventions at different points of the disease pathway, evaluating separately may not be problematic if we start at the end of the pathway and move backwards, similar to the method of backward induction used in sequence problems in game theory. There are additional related questions that I’d like to see these authors turn to next, such as how to include interaction effects between interventions and, in particular, how to evaluate system-wide policies that may interact with a very large number of interventions. This paper makes a great contribution to answering all of these questions by establishing a framework that clearly distinguishes concepts that had previously been subject to muddied thinking.

When cost-effective interventions are unaffordable: integrating cost-effectiveness and budget impact in priority setting for global health programs. PLoS Medicine [PubMed] Published 2nd October 2017

In my opinion, there are many things that health economists shouldn’t try to include when they conduct cost-effectiveness analysis. Affordability is not one of these. This paper is great, because Bilinski et al shine a light on the worldwide phenomenon of interventions being found to be ‘cost-effective’ but not affordable. A particular quote – that it would be financially impossible to implement all interventions that are found to be ‘very cost-effective’ in many low- and middle-income countries – is quite shocking. Bilinski et al compare and contrast cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis, and argue that there are four key reasons why something could be ‘cost-effective’ but not affordable: 1) judging cost-effectiveness with reference to an inappropriate cost-effectiveness ‘threshold’, 2) adoption of a societal perspective that includes costs not falling upon the payer’s budget, 3) failing to make explicit consideration of the distribution of costs over time and 4) the use of an inappropriate discount rate that may not accurately reflect the borrowing and investment opportunities facing the payer. They then argue that, because of this, cost-effectiveness analysis should be presented along with budget impact analysis so that the decision-maker can base a decision on both analyses. I don’t disagree with this as a pragmatic interim solution, but – by highlighting these four reasons for divergence of results with such important economic consequences – I think that there will be further reaching implications of this paper. To my mind, Bilinski et al essentially serves as a call to arms for researchers to try to come up with frameworks and estimates so that the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis can be improved in order that paradoxical results are no longer produced, decisions are more usefully informed by cost-effectiveness analysis, and the opportunity costs of large budget impacts are properly evaluated – especially in the context of low- and middle-income countries where the foregone health from poor decisions can be so significant.

Patient cost-sharing, socioeconomic status, and children’s health care utilization. Journal of Health Economics [PubMed] Published 16th April 2018

This paper evaluates a policy using a combination of regression discontinuity design and difference-in-difference methods. Not only does it do that, but it tackles an important policy question using a detailed population-wide dataset (a set of linked datasets, more accurately). As if that weren’t enough, one of the policy reforms was actually implemented as a result of a vote where two politicians ‘accidentally pressed the wrong button’, reducing concerns that the policy may have in some way not been exogenous. Needless to say I found the method employed in this paper to be a pretty convincing identification strategy. The policy question at hand is about whether demand for GP visits for children in the Swedish county of Scania (Skåne) is affected by cost-sharing. Cost-sharing for GP visits has occurred for different age groups over different periods of time, providing the basis for regression discontinuities around the age threshold and treated and control groups over time. Nilsson and Paul find results suggesting that when health care is free of charge doctor visits by children increase by 5-10%. In this context, doctor visits happened subject to telephone triage by a nurse and so in this sense it can be argued that all of these visits would be ‘needed’. Further, Nilsson and Paul find that the sensitivity to price is concentrated in low-income households, and is greater among sickly children. The authors contextualise their results very well and, in addition to that context, I can’t deny that it also particularly resonated with me to read this approaching the 70th birthday of the NHS – a system where cost-sharing has never been implemented for GP visits by children. This paper is clearly also highly relevant to that debate that has surfaced again and again in the UK.

Credits

 

Bad reasons not to use the EQ-5D-5L

We’ve seen a few editorials and commentaries popping up about the EQ-5D-5L recently, in Health Economics, PharmacoEconomics, and PharmacoEconomics again. All of these articles have – to varying extents – acknowledged the need for NICE to exercise caution in the adoption of the EQ-5D-5L. I don’t get it. I see no good reason not to use the EQ-5D-5L.

If you’re not familiar with the story of the EQ-5D-5L in England, read any of the linked articles, or see an OHE blog post summarising the tale. The important part of the story is that NICE has effectively recommended the use of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system (the questionnaire), but not the new EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Of the new editorials and commentaries, Devlin et al are vaguely pro-5L, Round is vaguely anti-5L, and Brazier et al are vaguely on the fence. NICE has manoeuvred itself into a situation where it has to make a binary decision. 5L, or no 5L (which means sticking with the old EQ-5D-3L value set). Yet nobody seems keen to lay down their view on what NICE ought to decide. Maybe there’s a fear of being proven wrong.

So, herewith a list of reasons for exercising caution in the adoption of the EQ-5D-5L, which are either explicitly or implicitly cited by recent commentators, and why they shouldn’t determine NICE’s decision. The EQ-5D-5L value set for England should be recommended without hesitation.

We don’t know if the descriptive system is valid

Round argues that while the 3L has been validated in many populations, the 5L has not. Diabetes, dementia, deafness and depression are presented as cases where the 3L has been validated but the 5L has not. But the same goes for the reverse. There are plenty of situations in which the 3L has been shown to be problematic and the 5L has not. It’s simply a matter of time. This argument should only hold sway if we expect there to be more situations in which the 5L lacks validity, or if those violations are in some way more serious. I see no evidence of that. In fact, we see measurement properties improved with the 5L compared with the 3L. Devlin et al put the argument to bed in highlighting the growing body of evidence demonstrating that the 5L descriptive system is better than the 3L descriptive system in a variety of ways, without any real evidence that there are downsides to the descriptive expansion. And this – the comparison of the 3L and the 5L – is the correct comparison to be making, because the use of the 3L represents current practice. More fundamentally, it’s hard to imagine how the 5L descriptive system could be less valid than the 3L descriptive system. That there are only a limited number of validation studies using the 5L is only a problem if we can hypothesise reasons for the 5L to lack validity where the 3L held it. I can’t think of any. And anyway, NICE is apparently satisfied with the descriptive system; it’s the value set they’re worried about.

We don’t know if the preference elicitation methods are valid for states worse than dead

This argument is made by Brazier et al. The value set for England uses lead time TTO, which is a relatively new (and therefore less-tested) method. The problem is that we don’t know if any methods for valuing states worse than dead are valid because valuing states worse than dead makes no real sense. Save for pulling out a Ouija board, or perhaps holding a gun to someone’s head, we can never find out what is the most valid approach to valuing states worse than dead. And anyway, this argument fails on the same basis as the previous one: where is the evidence to suggest that the MVH approach to valuing states worse than dead (for the EQ-5D-3L) holds more validity than lead time TTO?

We don’t know if the EQ-VT was valid

As discussed by Brazier et al, it looks like there may have been some problems in the administration of the EuroQol valuation protocol (the EQ-VT) for the EQ-5D-5L value set. As a result, some of the data look a bit questionable, including large spikes in the distribution of values at 1.0, 0.5, 0.0, and -1.0. Certainly, this justifies further investigation. But it shouldn’t stall adoption of the 5L value set unless this constitutes a greater concern than the distributional characteristics of the 3L, and that’s not an argument I see anybody making. Perhaps there should have been more piloting of the EQ-VT, but that should (in itself) have no bearing on the decision of whether to use the 3L value set or the 5L value set. If the question is whether we expect the EQ-VT protocol to provide a more accurate estimation of health preferences than the MVH protocol – and it should be – then as far as I can tell there is no real basis for preferring the MVH protocol.

We don’t know if the value set (for England) is valid

Devlin et al state that, with respect to whether differences in the value sets represent improvements, “Until the external validation of the England 5L value set concludes, the jury is still out.” I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t know what the external validation is going to involve, but it’s hard to imagine a punctual piece of work that could demonstrate the ‘betterness’ of the 5L value set compared with the 3L value set. Yes, a validation exercise could tell us whether the value set is replicable. But unless validation of the comparator (i.e. the 3L value set) is also attempted and judged on the same basis, it won’t be at all informative to NICE’s decision. Devlin et al state that there is a governmental requirement to validate the 5L value set for England. But beyond checking the researchers’ sums, it’s difficult to understand what that could even mean. Given that nobody seems to have defined ‘validity’ in this context, this is a very dodgy basis for determining adoption or non-adoption of the 5L.

5L-based evaluations will be different to 3L-based evaluations

Well, yes. Otherwise, what would be the point? Brazier et al present this as a justification for a ‘pause’ for an independent review of the 5L value set. The authors present the potential shift in priority from life-improving treatments to life-extending treatments as a key reason for a pause. But this is clearly a circular argument. Pausing to look at the differences will only bring those (and perhaps new) differences into view (though notably at a slower rate than if the 5L was more widely adopted). And then what? We pause for longer? Round also mentions this point as a justification for further research. This highlights a misunderstanding of what it means for NICE to be consistent. NICE has no responsibility to make decisions in 2018 precisely as it would have in 2008. That would be foolish and ignorant of methodological and contextual developments. What NICE needs to provide is consistency in the present – precisely what is precluded by the current semi-adoption of the EQ-5D-5L.

5L data won’t be comparable to 3L data

Round mentions this. But why does it matter? This is nothing compared to the trickery that goes on in economic modelling. The whole point of modelling is to do the best we can with the data we’ve got. If we have to compare an intervention for which outcomes are measured in 3L values with an intervention for which outcomes are measured in 5L values, then so be it. That is not a problem. It is only a problem if manufacturers strategically use 3L or 5L values according to whichever provides the best results. And you know what facilitates that? A pause, where nobody really knows what is going on and NICE has essentially said that the use of both 3L and 5L descriptive systems is acceptable. If you think mapping from 5L to 3L values is preferable to consistently using the 5L values then, well, I can’t reason with you, because mapping is never anything but a fudge (albeit a useful one).

There are problems with the 3L, so we shouldn’t adopt the 5L

There’s little to say on this point beyond asserting that we mustn’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. Show me what else you’ve got that could be more readily and justifiably introduced to replace the 3L. Round suggests that shifting from the 3L to the 5L is no different to shifting from the 3L to an entirely different measure, such as the SF-6D. That’s wrong. There’s a good reason that NICE should consider the 5L as the natural successor to the 3L. And that’s because it is. This is exactly what it was designed to be: a methodological improvement on the same conceptual footing. The key point here is that the 3L and 5L contain the same domains. They’re trying to capture health-related quality of life in a consistent way; they refer to the same evaluative space. Shifting to the SF-6D (for example) would be a conceptual shift, whereas shifting to the 5L from the 3L is nothing but a methodological shift (with the added benefit of more up-to-date preference data).

To sum up

Round suggests that the pause is because of “an unexpected set of results” arising from the valuation exercise. That may be true in part. But I think it’s more likely the fault of dodgy public sector deals with the likes of Richard Branson and a consequently algorithm-fearing government. I totally agree with Round that, if NICE is considering a new outcome measure, they shouldn’t just be considering the 5L. But given that right now they are only considering the 5L, and that the decision is explicitly whether or not to adopt the 5L, there are no reasons not to do so.

The new value set is only a step change because we spent the last 25 years idling. Should we really just wait for NICE to assess the value set, accept it, and then return to our see-no-evil position for the next 25 years? No! The value set should be continually reviewed and redeveloped as methods improve and societal preferences evolve. The best available value set for England (and Wales) should be regularly considered by NICE as part of a review of the reference case. A special ‘pause’ for the new 5L value set will only serve to reinforce the longevity of compromised value sets in the future.

Yes, the EQ-5D-3L and its associated value set for the UK has been brilliantly useful over the years, but it now has a successor that – as far as we can tell – is better in many ways and at least as good in the rest. As a public body, NICE is conservative by nature. But researchers needn’t be.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 19th March 2018

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.

Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open [PubMed] Published 8th March 2018

As well as the cost-effectiveness of health care, economists are increasingly concerned with the cost-effectiveness of health research. This makes sense, given that both are usually publicly funded and so spending on one (in principle) limits spending on the other. NICE exists in part to prevent waste in the provision of health care – seeking to maximise benefit. In this paper, the authors (all current or ex-employees of NICE) consider the extent to which NICE processes are also be used to prevent waste in health research. The study focuses on the processes underlying NICE guideline development and HTA, and the work by NICE’s Science Policy and Research (SP&R) programme. Through systematic review and (sometimes) economic modelling, NICE guidelines identify research needs, and NICE works with the National Institute for Health Research to get their recommended research commissioned, with some research fast-tracked as ‘NICE Key Priorities’. Sometimes, it’s also necessary to prioritise research into methodological development, and NICE have conducted reviews to address this, with the Internal Research Advisory Group established to ensure that methodological research is commissioned. The paper also highlights the roles of other groups such as the Decision Support Unit, Technical Support Unit and External Assessment Centres. This paper is useful for two reasons. First, it gives a clear and concise explanation of NICE’s processes with respect to research prioritisation, and maps out the working groups involved. This will provide researchers with an understanding of how their work fits into this process. Second, the paper highlights NICE’s current research priorities and provides insight into how these develop. This could be helpful to researchers looking to develop new ideas and proposals that will align with NICE’s priorities.

The impact of the minimum wage on health. International Journal of Health Economics and Management [PubMed] Published 7th March 2018

The minimum wage is one of those policies that is so far-reaching, and with such ambiguous implications for different people, that research into its impact can deliver dramatically different conclusions. This study uses American data and takes advantage of the fact that different states have different minimum wage levels. The authors try to look at a broad range of mechanisms by which minimum wage can affect health. A major focus is on risky health behaviours. The study uses data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which includes around 300,000 respondents per year across all states. Relevant variables from these data characterise smoking, drinking, and fruit and vegetable consumption, as well as obesity. There are also indicators of health care access and self-reported health. The authors cut their sample to include 21-64-year-olds with no more than a high school degree. Difference-in-differences are estimated by OLS according to individual states’ minimum wage changes. As is often the case for minimum wage studies, the authors find several non-significant effects: smoking and drinking don’t seem to be affected. Similarly, there isn’t much of an impact on health care access. There seems to be a small positive impact of minimum wage on the likelihood of being obese, but no impact on BMI. I’m not sure how to interpret that, but there is also evidence that a minimum wage increase leads to a reduction in fruit and vegetable consumption, which adds credence to the obesity finding. The results also demonstrate that a minimum wage increase can reduce the number of days that people report to be in poor health. But generally – on aggregate – there isn’t much going on at all. So the authors look at subgroups. Smoking is found to increase (and BMI decrease) with minimum wage for younger non-married white males. Obesity is more likely to be increased by minimum wage hikes for people who are white or married, and especially for those in older age groups. Women seem to benefit from fewer days with mental health problems. The main concerns identified in this paper are that minimum wage increases could increase smoking in young men and could reduce fruit and veg consumption. But I don’t think we should overstate it. There’s a lot going on in the data, and though the authors do a good job of trying to identify the effects, other explanations can’t be excluded. Minimum wage increases probably don’t have a major direct impact on health behaviours – positive or negative – but policymakers should take note of the potential value in providing public health interventions to those groups of people who are likely to be affected by the minimum wage.

Aligning policy objectives and payment design in palliative care. BMC Palliative Care [PubMed] Published 7th March 2018

Health care at the end of life – including palliative care – presents challenges in evaluation. The focus is on improving patients’ quality of life, but it’s also about satisfying preferences for processes of care, the experiences of carers, and providing a ‘good death’. And partly because these things can be difficult to measure, it can be difficult to design payment mechanisms to achieve desirable outcomes. Perhaps that’s why there is no current standard approach to funding for palliative care, with a lot of variation between countries, despite the common aspiration for universality. This paper tackles the question of payment design with a discussion of the literature. Traditionally, palliative care has been funded by block payments, per diems, or fee-for-service. The author starts with the acknowledgement that there are two challenges to ensuring value for money in palliative care: moral hazard and adverse selection. Providers may over-supply because of fee-for-service funding arrangements, or they may ‘cream-skim’ patients. Adverse selection may arise in an insurance-based system, with demand from high-risk people causing the market to fail. These problems could potentially be solved by capitation-based payments and risk adjustment. The market could also be warped by blunt eligibility restrictions and funding caps. Another difficulty is the challenge of achieving allocative efficiency between home-based and hospital-based services, made plain by the fact that, in many countries, a majority of people die in hospital despite a preference for dying at home. The author describes developments (particularly in Australia) in activity-based funding for palliative care. An interesting proposal – though not discussed in enough detail – is that payments could be made for each death (per mortems?). Capitation-based payment models are considered and the extent to which pay-for-performance could be incorporated is also discussed – the latter being potentially important in achieving those process outcomes that matter so much in palliative care. Yet another challenge is the question of when palliative care should come into play, because, in some cases, it’s a matter of sooner being better, because the provision of palliative care can give rise to less costly and more preferred treatment pathways. Thus, palliative care funding models will have implications for the funding of acute care. Throughout, the paper includes examples from different countries, along with a wealth of references to dig into. Helpfully, the author explicitly states in a table the models that different settings ought to adopt, given their prevailing model. As our population ages and the purse strings tighten, this is a discussion we can expect to be having more and more.

Credits