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

Perspectives of patients with cancer on the quality-adjusted life year as a measure of value in healthcare. Value in Health Published 29th December 2018

Patients should have the opportunity to understand how decisions are made about which treatments they are and are not allowed to use, given their coverage. This study reports on a survey of cancer patients and survivors, with the aim of identifying patients’ awareness, understanding, and opinions about the QALY as a measure of value.

Participants were recruited from a (presumably US-based) patient advocacy group and 774 mostly well-educated, mostly white, mostly women responded. The online survey asked about cancer status and included a couple of measures of health literacy. Fewer than 7% of participants had ever heard of the QALY – more likely for those with greater health literacy. The survey explained the QALY to the participants and then asked if the concept of the QALY makes sense. Around half said it did and 24% thought that it was a good way to measure value in health care. The researchers report a variety of ‘significant’ differences in tendencies to understand or support the use of QALYs, but I’m not convinced that they’re meaningful because the differences aren’t big and the samples are relatively small.

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to provide opinions on QALYs and value in health care. 165 people provided responses and these were coded and analysed qualitatively. The researchers identified three themes from this one free-text question: i) measuring value, ii) opinions on QALY, and iii) value in health care and decision making. I’m not sure that they’re meaningful themes that help us to understand patients’ views on QALYs. A significant proportion of respondents rejected the idea of using numbers to quantify value in health care. On the other hand, some suggested that the QALY could be a useful decision aid for patients. There was opposition to ‘external decision makers’ having any involvement in health care decision making. Unless you’re paying for all of your care out of pocket, that’s tough luck. But the most obvious finding from the qualitative analysis is that respondents didn’t understand what QALYs were for. That’s partly because health economists in general need to be better at communicating concepts like the QALY. But I think it’s also in large part because the authors failed to provide a clear explanation. They didn’t even use my lovely Wikipedia graphic. Many of the points made by respondents are entirely irrelevant to the appropriateness of QALYs as they’re used (or in the case of the US, aren’t yet used) in practice. For example, several discussed the use of QALYs in clinical decision making. Patients think that they should maintain autonomy, which is fair enough but has nothing to do with how QALYs are used to assess health technologies.

QALYs are built on the idea of trade-offs. They measure the trade-off between life extension and life improvement. They are used to guide trade-offs between different treatments for different people. But the researchers didn’t explain how or why QALYs are used to make trade-offs, so the elicited views aren’t well-informed.

Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain. Journal of Health Economics Published 27th December 2018

Health preferences research is now a substantial field in itself. But there’s still a lot of work left to be done on understanding risk preferences with respect to health. Gradually, we’re coming round to the idea that people tend to be risk-averse. But risk preferences aren’t (necessarily) so simple. Recent research has proposed that ‘higher order’ preferences such as prudence and temperance play a role. A person exhibiting univariate prudence for longevity would be better able to cope with risk if they are going to live longer. Univariate temperance is characterised by a preference for prospects that disaggregate risk across different possible outcomes. Risk preferences can also be multivariate – across health and wealth, for example – determining the relationship between univariate risk preferences and other attributes. These include correlation aversion, cross-prudence, and cross-temperance. Many articles from the Arthur Attema camp demand a great deal of background knowledge. This paper isn’t an exception, but it does provide a very clear and intuitive description of the various kinds of uni- and multivariate risk preferences that the researchers are considering.

For this study, an experiment was conducted with 98 people, who were asked to make 69 choices, corresponding to 3 choices about each risk preference trait being tested, for both gains and losses. Participants were told that they had €240,000 in wealth and 40 years of life to play with. The number of times that an individual made choices in line with a particular trait was used as an indicator of their strength of preference.

For gains, risk aversion was common for both wealth and longevity, and prudence was a common trait. There was no clear tendency towards temperance. For losses, risk aversion and prudence tended to neutrality. For multivariate risk preferences, a majority of people were correlation averse for gains and correlation seeking for losses. For gains, 76% of choices were compatible with correlation aversion, suggesting that people prefer to disaggregate fixed wealth and health gains. For losses, the opposite was true in 68% of choices. There was evidence for cross-prudence in wealth gains but not longevity gains, suggesting that people prefer health risk if they have higher wealth. For losses, the researchers observed cross-prudence and cross-temperance neutrality. The authors go on to explore associations between different traits.

A key contribution is in understanding how risk preferences differ in the health domain as compared with the monetary domain (which is what most economists study). Conveniently, there are a lot of similarities between risk preferences in the two domains, suggesting that health economists can learn from the wider economics literature. Risk aversion and prudence seem to apply to longevity as well as monetary gains, with a shift to neutrality in losses. The potential implications of these findings are far-reaching, but this is just a small experimental study. More research needed (and anticipated).

Prospective payment systems and discretionary coding—evidence from English mental health providers. Health Economics [PubMed] Published 27th December 2018

If you’ve conducted an economic evaluation in the context of mental health care in England, you’ll have come across mental health care clusters. Patients undergoing mental health care are allocated to one of 20 clusters, classed as either ‘psychotic’, ‘non-psychotic’, or ‘organic’, which forms the basis of an episodic payment model. In 2013/14, these episodes were associated with an average cost of between £975 and £9,354 per day. Doctors determine the clusters and the clusters determine reimbursement. Perverse incentives abound. Or do they?

This study builds on the fact that patients are allocated by clinical teams with guidance from the algorithm-based Mental Health Clustering Tool (MHCT). Clinical teams might exhibit upcoding, whereby patients are allocated to clusters that attract a higher price than that recommended by the MHCT. Data were analysed for 148,471 patients from the Mental Health Services Data Set for 2011-2015. For each patient, their allocated cluster is known, along with a variety of socioeconomic indicators and the HoNoS and SARN instruments, which go into the MHCT algorithm. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to look at whether individual patients were or were not allocated to the cluster recommended as ‘best fit’ by the MHCT, controlling for patient and provider characteristics. Further to this, multilevel multinomial logit models were used to categorise decisions that don’t match the MHCT as either under- or overcoding.

Average agreement across clusters between the MHCT and clinicians was 36%. In most cases, patients were allocated to a cluster either one step higher or one step lower in terms of the level of need, and there isn’t an obvious tendency to overcode. The authors are able to identify a few ways in which observable provider and patient characteristics influence the tendency to under- or over-cluster patients. For example, providers with higher activity are less likely to deviate from the MHCT best fit recommendation. However, the dominant finding – identified by using median odds ratios for the probability of a mismatch between two random providers – seems to be that unobserved heterogeneity determines variation in behaviour.

The study provides clues about the ways in which providers could manipulate coding to their advantage and identifies the need for further data collection for a proper assessment. But reimbursement wasn’t linked to clustering during the time period of the study, so it remains to be seen how clinicians actually respond to these potentially perverse incentives.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 2nd July 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.

Choice in the presence of experts: the role of general practitioners in patients’ hospital choice. Journal of Health Economics [PubMed] [RePEc] Published 26th June 2018

In the UK, patients are in principle free to choose which hospital they use for elective procedures. However, as these choices operate through a GP referral, the extent to which the choice is ‘free’ is limited. The choice set is provided by the GP and thus there are two decision-makers. It’s a classic example of the principal-agent relationship. What’s best for the patient and what’s best for the local health care budget might not align. The focus of this study is on the applied importance of this dynamic and the idea that econometric studies that ignore it – by looking only at patient decision-making or only at GP decision-making – may give bias estimates. The author outlines a two-stage model for the choice process that takes place. Hospital characteristics can affect choices in three ways: i) by only influencing the choice set that the GP presents to the patient, e.g. hospital quality, ii) by only influencing the patient’s choice from the set, e.g. hospital amenities, and iii) by influencing both, e.g. waiting times. The study uses Hospital Episode Statistics for 30,000 hip replacements that took place in 2011/12, referred by 4,721 GPs to 168 hospitals, to examine revealed preferences. The choice set for each patient is not observed, so a key assumption is that all hospitals to which a GP made referrals in the period are included in the choice set presented to patients. The main findings are that both GPs and patients are influenced primarily by distance. GPs are influenced by hospital quality and the budget impact of referrals, while distance and waiting times explain patient choices. For patients, parking spaces seem to be more important than mortality ratios. The results support the notion that patients defer to GPs in assessing quality. In places, it’s difficult to follow what the author did and why they did it. But in essence, the author is looking for (and in most cases finding) reasons not to ignore GPs’ preselection of choice sets when conducting econometric analyses involving patient choice. Econometricians should take note. And policymakers should be asking whether freedom of choice is sensible when patients prioritise parking and when variable GP incentives could give rise to heterogeneous standards of care.

Using evidence from randomised controlled trials in economic models: what information is relevant and is there a minimum amount of sample data required to make decisions? PharmacoEconomics [PubMed] Published 20th June 2018

You’re probably aware of the classic ‘irrelevance of inference’ argument. Statistical significance is irrelevant in deciding whether or not to fund a health technology, because we ought to do whatever we expect to be best on average. This new paper argues the case for irrelevance in other domains, namely multiplicity (e.g. multiple testing) and sample size. With a primer on hypothesis testing, the author sets out the regulatory perspective. Multiplicity inflates the chance of a type I error, so regulators worry about it. That’s why triallists often obsess over primary outcomes (and avoiding multiplicity). But when we build decision models, we rely on all sorts of outcomes from all sorts of studies, and QALYs are never the primary outcome. So what does this mean for reimbursement decision-making? Reimbursement is based on expected net benefit as derived using decision models, which are Bayesian by definition. Within a Bayesian framework of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, data for relevant parameters should never be disregarded on the basis of the status of their collection in a trial, and it is up to the analyst to properly specify a model that properly accounts for the effects of multiplicity and other sources of uncertainty. The author outlines how this operates in three settings: i) estimating treatment effects for rare events, ii) the number of trials available for a meta-analysis, and iii) the estimation of population mean overall survival. It isn’t so much that multiplicity and sample size are irrelevant, as they could inform the analysis, but rather that no data is too weak for a Bayesian analyst.

Life satisfaction, QALYs, and the monetary value of health. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 18th June 2018

One of this blog’s first ever posts was on the subject of ‘the well-being valuation approach‘ but, to date, I don’t think we’ve ever covered a study in the round-up that uses this method. In essence, the method is about estimating trade-offs between (for example) income and some measure of subjective well-being, or some health condition, in order to estimate the income equivalence for that state. This study attempts to estimate the (Australian) dollar value of QALYs, as measured using the SF-6D. Thus, the study is a rival cousin to the Claxton-esque opportunity cost approach, and a rival sibling to stated preference ‘social value of a QALY’ approaches. The authors are trying to identify a threshold value on the basis of revealed preferences. The analysis is conducted using 14 waves of the Australian HILDA panel, with more than 200,000 person-year responses. A regression model estimates the impact on life satisfaction of income, SF-6D index scores, and the presence of long-term conditions. The authors adopt an instrumental variable approach to try and address the endogeneity of life satisfaction and income, using an indicator of ‘financial worsening’ to approximate an income shock. The estimated value of a QALY is found to be around A$42,000 (~£23,500) over a 2-year period. Over the long-term, it’s higher, at around A$67,000 (~£37,500), because individuals are found to discount money differently to health. The results also demonstrate that individuals are willing to pay around A$2,000 to avoid a long-term condition on top of the value of a QALY. The authors apply their approach to a few examples from the literature to demonstrate the implications of using well-being valuation in the economic evaluation of health care. As with all uses of experienced utility in the health domain, adaptation is a big concern. But a key advantage is that this approach can be easily applied to large sets of survey data, giving powerful results. However, I haven’t quite got my head around how meaningful the results are. SF-6D index values – as used in this study – are generated on the basis of stated preferences. So to what extent are we measuring revealed preferences? And if it’s some combination of stated and revealed preference, how should we interpret willingness to pay values?

Credits

 

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 19th June 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.

Health-related resource-use measurement instruments for intersectoral costs and benefits in the education and criminal justice sectors. PharmacoEconomics [PubMed] Published 8th June 2017

Increasingly, people are embracing a societal perspective for economic evaluation. This often requires the identification of costs (and benefits) in non-health sectors such as education and criminal justice. But it feels as if we aren’t as well-versed in capturing these as we are in the health sector. This study reviews the measures that are available to support a broader perspective. The authors search the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement (DIRUM) as well as the usual electronic journal databases. The review also sought to identify the validity and reliability of the instruments. From 167 papers assessed in the review, 26 different measures were identified (half of which were in DIRUM). 21 of the instruments were only used in one study. Half of the measures included items relating to the criminal justice sector, while 21 included education-related items. Common specifics for education included time missed at school, tutoring needs, classroom assistance and attendance at a special school. Criminal justice sector items tended to include legal assistance, prison detainment, court appearances, probation and police contacts. Assessments of the psychometric properties was found for only 7 of the 26 measures, with specific details on the non-health items available for just 2: test-retest reliability for the Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) and validity for the WPAI+CIQ:SHP,V2 (there isn’t room on the Internet for the full name). So there isn’t much evidence of any validity for any of these measures in the context of intersectoral (non-health) costs and benefits. It’s no doubt the case that health-specific resource use measures aren’t subject to adequate testing, but this study has identified that the problem may be even greater when it comes to intersectoral costs and benefits. Most worrying, perhaps, is the fact that 1 in 5 of the articles identified in the review reported using some unspecified instrument, presumably developed specifically for the study or adapted from an off-the-shelf instrument. The authors propose that a new resource use measure for intersectoral costs and benefits (RUM ICB) be developed from scratch, with reference to existing measures and guidance from experts in education and criminal justice.

Use of large-scale HRQoL datasets to generate individualised predictions and inform patients about the likely benefit of surgery. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 31st May 2017

In the NHS, EQ-5D data are now routinely collected from patients before and after undergoing one of four common procedures. These data can be used to see how much patients’ health improves (or deteriorates) following the operations. However, at the individual level, for a person deciding whether or not to undergo the procedure, aggregate outcomes might not be all that useful. This study relates to the development of a nifty online tool that a prospective patient can use to find out the expected likelihood that they will feel better, the same or worse following the procedure. The data used include EQ-5D-3L responses associated with almost half a million unilateral hip or knee replacements or groin hernia repairs between April 2009 and March 2016. Other variables are also included, and central to this analysis is a Likert scale about improvement or worsening of hip/knee/hernia problems compared to before the operation. The purpose of the study is to group people – based on their pre-operation characteristics – according to their expected postoperative utility scores. The authors employed a recursive Classification and Regression Tree (CART) algorithm to split the datasets into strata according to the risk factors. The final set of risk variables were age, gender, pre-operative EQ-5D-3L profile and symptom duration. The CART analysis grouped people into between 55 and 60 different groups for each of the procedures, with the groupings explaining 14-27% of the variation in postoperative utility scores. Minimally important (positive and negative) differences in the EQ-5D utility score were estimated with reference to changes in the Likert scale for each of the procedures. These ranged in magnitude from 0.041 to 0.106. The resulting algorithms are what drive the results delivered by the online interface (you can go and have a play with it). There are a few limitations to the study, such as the reliance on complete case analysis and the fact that the CART analysis might lack predictive ability. And there’s an interesting problem inherent in all of this, that the more people use the tool, the less representative it will become as it influences selection into treatment. The validity of the tool as a precise risk calculator is quite limited. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that it unlocks some of the potential value of PROMs to provide meaningful guidance in the process of shared decision-making.

Can present biasedness explain early onset of diabetes and subsequent disease progression? Exploring causal inference by linking survey and register data. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 26th May 2017

The term ‘irrational’ is overused by economists. But one situation in which I am willing to accept it is with respect to excessive present bias. That people don’t pay enough attention to future outcomes seems to be a fundamental limitation of the human brain in the 21st century. When it comes to diabetes and its complications, there are lots of treatments available, but there is only so much that doctors can do. A lot depends on the patient managing their own disease, and it stands to reason that present bias might cause people to manage their diabetes poorly, as the value of not going blind or losing a foot 20 years in the future seems less salient than the joy of eating your own weight in carbs right now. But there’s a question of causality here; does the kind of behaviour associated with time-inconsistent preferences lead to poorer health or vice versa? This study provides some insight on that front. The authors outline an expected utility model with quasi-hyperbolic discounting and probability weighting, and incorporate a present bias coefficient attached to payoffs occurring in the future. Postal questionnaires were collected from 1031 type 2 diabetes patients in Denmark with an online discrete choice experiment as a follow-up. These data were combined with data from a registry of around 9000 diabetes patients, from which the postal/online participants were identified. BMI, HbA1c, age and year of diabetes onset were all available in the registry and the postal survey included physical activity, smoking, EQ-5D, diabetes literacy and education. The DCE was designed to elicit time preferences using the offer of (monetary) lottery wins, with 12 different choice sets presented to all participants. Unfortunately, despite the offer of a real-life lottery award for taking part in the research, only 79 of 1031 completed the online DCE survey. Regression analyses showed that individuals with diabetes since 1999 or earlier, or who were 48 or younger at the time of onset, exhibited present bias. And the present bias seems to be causal. Being inactive, obese, diabetes illiterate and having lower quality of life or poorer glycaemic control were associated with being present biased. These relationships hold when subject to a number of control measures. So it looks as if present bias explains at least part of the variation in self-management and health outcomes for people with diabetes. Clearly, the selection of the small sample is a bit of a concern. It may have meant that people with particular risk preferences (given that the reward was a lottery) were excluded, and so the sample might not be representative. Nevertheless, it seems that at least some people with diabetes could benefit from interventions that increase the salience of future health-related payoffs associated with self-management.

Credits