Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 19th August 2019

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.

Paying for kidneys? A randomized survey and choice experiment. American Economic Review [RePEc] Published August 2019

This paper starts with a quote from Alvin Roth about ‘repugnant transactions’, of which markets for organs provide a prime example. This idea of ‘repugnant transactions’ has been hijacked by some pop economists to represent the stupid opinions of non-economists. If you ask me, markets for organs aren’t repugnant, they just seem like a very bad idea in terms of both efficiency and equity. But it doesn’t matter what I think; it matters what the people of the United States think.

The authors of this study conducted an online survey with a representative sample of 2,666 Americans. Each respondent was randomised to evaluate one of eight systems compared with the current system. The eight systems differed with respect to i) cash or non-cash compensation of ii) different sizes ($30,000 or $100,000), iii) paid by either a public agency or the organ recipient. Participants made five binary choices that differed according to the gain – in transplants generated – associated with the new system. Half of the participants were also asked to express moral judgements.

Both the system features (e.g. who pays) and the outcomes of the new system influenced people’s choices. Broadly speaking, the results suggest that people aren’t opposed to donors being paid, but are opposed to patients paying. (Remember, we’re talking about the US here!). Around 21% of respondents opposed payment no matter what, 46% were in favour no matter what, and 18% were sensitive to the gain in the number of transplants. A 10% point increase in transplants resulted in a 2.6% point increase in support. Unsurprisingly, individuals’ moral judgements were predictive of the attitudes they expressed, particularly with respect to fairness. The authors describe their results as exhibiting ‘strong polarisation’, which is surely inevitable for questions that involve moral judgement.

Being in AER, this is a long meandering paper with extensive analyses and thoroughly reported results. There’s lots of information and findings that I can’t share here. It’s a valuable study with plenty of food for thought, but I can’t help but think that it is, methodologically, a bit weak. If we want to understand the different views in society, surely some Q methodology would be more useful than a basic online survey. And if we want to elicit stated preferences, surely a discrete choice experiment with a well-thought-out efficient design would give us more meaningful results.

Estimating local need for mental healthcare to inform fair resource allocation in the NHS in England: cross-sectional analysis of national administrative data linked at person level. The British Journal of Psychiatry [PubMed] Published 8th August 2019

The need to fairly (and efficiently) allocate NHS resources across the country played an important part in the birth of health economics in the UK, and resulted in resource allocation formulas. Since 1996 there has been a separate formula for mental health services, which is periodically updated. This study describes the work undertaken for the latest update.

The model is based on predicting service use and total mental health care costs observed in 2015 from predictors in the years 2013-2014, to inform allocations in 2019-2024. Various individual-level data sources available to the NHS were used for 43.7 million people registered with a GP practice and over the age of 20. The cost per patient who used mental health services ranged from £94 to over one million, averaging around £2,000. The predictor variables included individual indicators such as age, sex, ethnicity, physical diagnoses, and household type (e.g. number of adults and kids). The model also used variables observed at the local or GP practice level, such as the proportion of people receiving out-of-work benefits and the distance from the mental health trust. All of this got plugged into a good old OLS regression. From individual-level predictions, the researchers created aggregated indices of need for each clinical commission group (CCG).

A lot went into the model, which explained 99% of the variation in costs between CCGs. A key way in which this model differs from previous versions is that it relies on individual-level indicators rather than those observed at the level of GP practice or CCG. There was a lot of variation in the CCG need indices, ranging from 0.65 for Surrey Heath to 1.62 for Southwark, where 1.00 is the average. You’ll need to check the online appendices for your own CCG’s level of need (Lewisham: 1.52). As one might expect, the researchers observed a strong correlation between a CCG’s need index and the CCG’s area’s level of deprivation. Compared with previous models, this new model indicates a greater allocation of resources to more deprived and older populations.

Measuring, valuing and including forgone childhood education and leisure time costs in economic evaluation: methods, challenges and the way forward. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 7th August 2019

I’m a ‘societal perspective’ sceptic, not because I don’t care about non-health outcomes (though I do care less) but because I think it’s impossible to capture everything that is of value to society, and that capturing just a few things will introduce a lot of bias and noise. I would also deny that time has any intrinsic value. But I do think we need to do a better job of evaluating interventions for children. So I expected this paper to provide me with a good mix of satisfaction and exasperation.

Health care often involves a loss of leisure or work time, which can constitute an opportunity cost and is regularly included in economic evaluations – usually proxied by wages – for adults. The authors outline the rationale for considering ‘time-related’ opportunity costs in economic evaluations and describe the nature of lost time for children. For adults, the distinction is generally between paid or unpaid work and leisure time. Arguably, this distinction is not applicable to children. Two literature reviews are described. One looked at economic evaluations in the context of children’s health, to see how researchers have valued lost time. The other sought to identify ideas about the value of lost time for children from a broader literature.

The authors do a nice job of outlining how difficult it is to capture non-health-related costs and outcomes in the context of childhood. There is a handful of economic evaluations that have tried to measure and value children’s foregone time. The valuations generally focussed on the costs of childcare rather than the costs to the child, though one looked at the rate of return to education. There wasn’t a lot to go off in the non-health literature, which mostly relates to adults. From what there is, the recommendation is to capture absence from formal education and foregone leisure time. Of course, consideration needs to be given to the importance of lost time and thus the value of capturing it in research. We also need to think about the risk of double counting. When it comes to measurement, we can probably use similar methods as we would for adults, such as diaries. But we need very different approaches to valuation. On this, the authors found very little in the way of good examples to follow. More research needed.

Credits

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 23rd 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.

Quantifying life: understanding the history of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 3rd July 2018

We’ve had some fun talking about the history of the QALY here on this blog. The story of how the QALY came to be important in health policy has been obscured. This paper seeks to address that. The research adopts a method called ‘multiple streams analysis’ (MSA) in order to explain how QALYs caught on. The MSA framework identifies three streams – policy, politics, and problems – and considers the ‘policy entrepreneurs’ involved. For this study, archival material was collected from the National Archives, Department of Health files, and the University of York. The researchers also conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with academics and civil servants.

The problem stream highlights shocks to the UK economy in the late 1960s, coupled with growth in health care costs due to innovations and changing expectations. Cost-effectiveness began to be studied and, increasingly, policymaking was meant to be research-based and accountable. By the 80s, the likes of Williams and Maynard were drawing attention to apparent inequities and inefficiencies in the health service. The policy stream gets going in the 40s and 50s when health researchers started measuring quality of life. By the early 60s, the idea of standardising these measures to try and rank health states was on the table. Through the late 60s and early 70s, government economists proliferated and proved themselves useful in health policy. The meeting of Rachel Rosser and Alan Williams in the mid-70s led to the creation of QALYs as we know them, combining quantity and quality of life on a 0-1 scale. Having acknowledged inefficiencies and inequities in the health service, UK politicians and medics were open to new ideas, but remained unconvinced by the QALY. Yet it was a willingness to consider the need for rationing that put the wheels in motion for NICE, and the politics stream – like the problem and policy stream – characterises favourable conditions for the use of the QALY.

The MSA framework also considers ‘policy entrepreneurs’ who broker the transition from idea to implementation. The authors focus on the role of Alan Williams and of the Economic Advisers’ Office. Williams was key in translating economic ideas into forms that policymakers could understand. Meanwhile, the Economic Advisers’ Office encouraged government economists to engage with academics at HESG and later the QoL Measurement Group (which led to the creation of EuroQol).

The main takeaway from the paper is that good ideas only prevail in the right conditions and with the right people. It’s important to maintain multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder networks. In the case of the QALY, the two-way movement of economists between government and academia was crucial.

I don’t completely understand or appreciate the MSA framework, but this paper is an enjoyable read. My only reservation is with the way the authors describe the QALY as being a dominant aspect of health policy in the UK. I don’t think that’s right. It’s dominant within a niche of a niche of a niche – that is, health technology assessment for new pharmaceuticals. An alternative view is that the QALY has in fact languished in a quiet corner of British policymaking, and been completely excluded in some other countries.

Accuracy of patient recall for self‐reported doctor visits: is shorter recall better? Health Economics [PubMed] Published 2nd July 2018

In designing observational studies, such as clinical trials, I have always recommended that self-reported resource use be collected no less frequently than every 3 months. This is partly based on something I once read somewhere that I can’t remember, but partly also on some logic that the accuracy of people’s recall decays over time. This paper has come to tell me how wrong I’ve been.

The authors start by highlighting that recall can be subject to omission, whereby respondents forget relevant information, or commission, whereby respondents include events that did not occur. A key manifestation of the latter is ‘telescoping’, whereby events are included from outside the recall period. We might expect commission to be more likely in short recalls and omission to be more common for long recalls. But there’s very little research on this regarding health service use.

This study uses data from a large trial in diabetes care in Australia, in which 5,305 participants were randomised to receive either 2-week, 3-month, or 12-month recall for how many times they had seen a doctor. Then, the trial data were matched with Medicare data to identify the true levels of resource use.

Over 92% of 12-month recall participants made an error, 76% of the 3-month recall, and 46% of the 2-week recall. The patterns of errors were different. There was very little under-reporting in the 2-week recall sample, with 3-month giving the most over-reporting and 12-month giving the most under-reporting. 12-month recall was associated with the largest number of days reported in error. However, when the authors account for the longer period being considered, and estimate a relative error, the impact of misreporting is smallest for the 12-month recall and greatest for the 2-week recall. This translates into a smaller overall bias for the longest recall period. The authors also find that older, less educated, unemployed, and low‐income patients exhibit higher measurement errors.

Health surveys and comparative studies that estimate resource use over a long period of time should use 12-month recall unless they can find a reason to do otherwise. The authors provide some examples from economic evaluations to demonstrate how selecting shorter recall periods could result in recommending the wrong decisions. It’s worth trying to understand the reasons why people can more accurately recall service use over 12 months. That way, data collection methods could be designed to optimise recall accuracy.

Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting. PLoS One [PubMed] Published 27th June 2018

Part of the reason the QALY faces opposition is that it has been used in a way that might not reflect societal preferences for resource allocation. In particular, the idea that ‘a QALY is a QALY is a QALY’ may conflict with notions of desert, severity, or process. We’re starting to see more evidence for groups of people holding different views, which makes it difficult to come up with decision rules to maximise welfare. This study considers some of the perspectives that people adopt, which have been identified in previous research – ‘equal right to healthcare’, ‘limits to healthcare’, and ‘effective and efficient healthcare’ – and looks at how they are distributed in the Netherlands. Using four willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises, the authors explore the relationship between these views and people’s preferences about resource allocation. Trade-offs are between quality vs quantity of life, health maximisation vs equality, children vs the elderly, and lifestyle-related risk vs adversity. The authors sought to test several hypotheses: i) that ‘equal right’ respondents have a lower WTT; ii) ‘limits to healthcare’ people express a preference for health gains, health maximisation, and treating people with adversity; and iii) ‘effective and efficient’ people support health maximisation, treating children, and treating people with adversity.

A representative online sample of adults in the Netherlands (n=261) was recruited. The first part of the questionnaire collected socio-demographic information. The second part asked questions necessary to allocate people to one of the three perspectives using Likert scales based on a previous study. The third part of the questionnaire consisted of the four reimbursement scenarios. Participants were asked to identify the point (in terms of the relevant quantities) at which they would be indifferent between two options.

The distribution of the viewpoints was 65% ‘equal right’, 23% ‘limits to healthcare’, and 7% ‘effective and efficient’. 6% couldn’t be matched to one of the three viewpoints. In each scenario, people had the option to opt out of trading. 24% of respondents were non-traders for all scenarios and, of these, 78% were of the ‘equal right’ viewpoint. Unfortunately, a lot of people opted out of at least one of the trades, and for a wide variety of reasons. Decisionmakers can’t opt out, so I’m not sure how useful this is.

The authors describe many associations between individual characteristics, viewpoints, and WTT results. But the tested hypotheses were broadly supported. While the findings showed that different groups were more or less willing to trade, the points of indifference for traders within the groups did not vary. So while you can’t please everyone in health care priority setting, this study shows how policies might be designed to satisfy the preferences of people with different perspectives.

Credits

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