Jason Shafrin’s journal round-up for 3rd February 2020

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.

Capacity constraints and time allocation in public health clinics. Health Economics [PubMed] Published 14th January 2020

Capacity constraints are a key issue in many health care markets. Capacity constraints can be due to short-run fluctuations in available labor or long-term resource scarcity where available supply does not meet demand at prevailing prices. One key issue to understand is how providers respond when capacity constraints appear. There are a number of potential options for health care providers to address capacity constraints. The first would be to decrease the number of patients seen. A second option would be to decrease quality. A third option would be to access additional funding to increase capacity. A fourth option would be to demand workers to work longer hours at no additional pay, which would be an implicit hourly wage reduction (and may not be legal).

In an attempt to find out the answer to this question, Harris, Liu and McCarthy examined data from a clinic in Tennessee. One issue with capacity constraints is that workforce allocation may be endogenous. Harris and co-authors look at a case where two nurses were removed from the clinic on selected mornings to administer flu shots at local schools. They claim that the assignment of nurses to schools was done by the local health department and those decisions were plausibly exogenous to any clinic decisions on volume or quality of care. Further, these nurses were not replaced by staff from other clinics.

The authors use data covering 16 months (i.e. two flu seasons) of visits. They first conducted a nurse-level analysis to evaluate if nurses on flu days had lower productivity. ‘FluNurse’ and ‘FluDay’ indicator variables were used. The former was used to control for whether the nurses selected to administer the flu shots at the schools were systematically more or less productive than the other nurses; the latter was used to measure the impact of the actual day when nurses were assigned to the school. The authors also conduct a visit-level analysis to see how time spent in the clinic varies on the days when nurse capacity is reduced compared to when it is not.

The authors find that the extensive margin is most important. On days when nurses visited schools, capacity is reduced by about 17%. On these days, providers do see fewer patients overall and prioritize scheduled visits over walk-ins. On the intensive margin, providers do decrease time spent with patients (by about 7%), but this time reduction is largely achieved by reducing some of the administrative aspects of the visit (i.e. expedited check-out times). The authors conclude that “providers value spending sufficient time with patients over seeing as many patients as possible.”

It is unclear whether these results would translate to other settings/countries or cases where capacity constraints are more long-term. The study does not discuss in detail how the clinic is reimbursed. A fee-for-service reimbursement may incentivize prioritizing volume over quality/time spent whereas under capitated or salaried reimbursement they may prioritize quality. Since many of the services examined by the study were provided by nurses, and nurses are more likely to be paid a salary rather than compensated based on clinic volume, it is unclear whether these results would translate to capacity constraints involving physicians.

Outcome measures for oncology alternative payment models: practical considerations and recommendations. American Journal of Managed Care [PubMed] Published 11th December 2019

Value-based payment sounds great in theory. Step 1: measure health outcomes and cost. Step 2: risk adjust to control for variability in patient health status. Step 3: pay providers more who have better outcomes and lower cost; pay providers less who have worse outcomes and higher cost. Simple, right? The answer is ‘yes’ according to many payers. A number of alternative payment models are being adapted by payers in the U.S. In oncology, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has implemented the Oncology Care Model (OCM) to reimburse providers based on quality and cost.

This approach, however, is only valid if payers and policymakers are able to adequately measure quality. How is quality currently captured for oncology patients? A paper by Hlávka, Lin, and Neumann provides an overview of existing quality measures. Specifically they review quality metrics from the following entities: (i) OCM, (ii) the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative by the American Society of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO), (iii) the Prospective Payment System–Exempt Cancer Hospital Quality Reporting Program by CMS, (iv) the Core Quality Measures Collaborative Core Sets by CMS and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), (v) the Oncology Medical Home program by the Community Oncology Alliance, (vi) the Osteoporosis Quality Improvement Registry by the National Osteoporosis Foundation and National Bone Health Alliance, and (vii) the Oncology Qualified Clinical Data Registry by the Oncology Nursing Society. So, how well do these entities measure health outcomes?

Well, in general, most are measuring quality of care processes rather than health outcomes. Of the 142 quality measures examined, only 28 (19.7%) were outcome measures; the rest were process measures. The outcome measures of interest fell into five categories: (1) hospital admissions or emergency department visits, (2) hospice care, (3) mortality, (4) patient reported outcomes (PROs), and (5) adverse events (AEs). The paper describes in more detail how/why these metrics are used (e.g. many hospital admissions are related to chemotherapy AEs, hospice care is underutilized).

While this paper is not a methodological advance, knowing what quality measures are available is extremely important. Further, the paper cites a number of limitations of these quality metrics. First, you need reliable data to measure these measures, even if patients move across health care systems. Additionally, administrative data (e.g. claims data) often appear with a lag. Second, risk adjustment is imperfect and applying a value-based payment may incentivize providers to select more low-risk patients and avoid the sickest cancer patients. Third, if we care about patients’ opinions—which we should!—PROs are important. Collecting PROs, however, is more expensive than using administrative data. Fourth, quality measurement in general takes time and effort. My own commentary in the Journal of Clinical Pathways argues that these limitations need to be taken seriously and these costs and accuracy issues may undermine the value of value-based payment in oncology if quality is measured poorly and is costly to collect.

Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics [PubMed] Published January 2020

We hear a lot about patient-centered care. Intuitively, it makes a lot of sense. Patients are the end users, the customers. So we should do our best to give them the treatments they want. At the same time, patients have imperfect information and rely on physicians to help guide their decisions. However, patients may value things that—as a society—we may not be willing to pay for. For instance, empirical research shows that patients place a high value on hospital amenities. Thus, one key question to answer is whether following patient preferences is likely to result in better health outcomes.

A paper by van Eijndhoven et al. (disclosure: I am an author on this paper) aims to answer this question for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The first step of the paper is to measure patient preferences across disease modifying drugs (DMDs). This was parameterized based on a discrete choice experiment of patients with multiple sclerosis. Second, a Markov model was used to estimate the impact of each individual DMD on health outcomes (i.e., number of relapses, disability progression over time, QALYs). QALYs were estimated utilities by health states defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), caregiver disutility in each state, disutility per relapse, and disutility due to adverse events from the literature. Third, the authors compared two states of the world: one based on patient-driven preferences (as estimated in Step 1) and another based on current prescribing practices in the United Kingdom.

Using this approach, patient-centered prescribing practices lead to 6.8% fewer relapses and a 4.6% increase in QALYs. Applied to the UK population level, this would result in almost 37,000 avoided relapses and over 44,000 discounted QALYs over a 50 year period. Additionally, disease progression was slowed. For the typical patients, EDSS was -0.16 less each year under the patient-centered prescribing compared to the current market shares.

There are a few reasons for this finding. First, under current treatment patterns, many patients are not treated. About 21% of patients with RRMS in the UK do not receive DMDs. Access to neurologist care is often difficult. Second, patients do have a strong preference for more effective, newer treatments. Previous research indicates that prescribers in England generally viewed NICE guidelines as mandatory criteria they were obligated to follow, whereas neurologists in Scotland and Wales were more varied.

This study did have a number of limitations. First, the study did not examine costs. Patients may prefer more effective treatments, but this may have cost implications for the UK health system. Second, the impact of treatments was based on clinical trial data. DMDs may be more or less effective in the real world, particularly if adherence is suboptimal. Third, once people reach high levels of disability (EDSS ≥7), the study assumed that they were treated with best supportive care. Thus, the estimates may be conservative if treatment is more aggressive. Fourth, the treatment options were based on currently approved DMDs. In the real-world, however, new treatments may become available and the actual health trajectories are likely to deviate from our model.

While this study does not answer what is the optimal treatment mix for a country, we do see evidence that patient-preferred treatments are highly related to the health benefits received. Thus—in the case of multiple sclerosis—physicians should not fear that shared decision-making with patients will result in worse outcomes. On the country, better health outcomes could be expected from shared decision-making.

Credits

Thesis Thursday: Logan Trenaman

On the third Thursday of every month, we speak to a recent graduate about their thesis and their studies. This month’s guest is Dr Logan Trenaman who has a PhD from the University of British Columbia. If you would like to suggest a candidate for an upcoming Thesis Thursday, get in touch.

Title
Economic evaluation of interventions to support shared decision-making: an extension of the valuation framework
Supervisors
Nick Bansback, Stirling Bryan
Repository link
http://hdl.handle.net/2429/66769

What is shared decision-making?

Shared decision-making is a process whereby patients and health care providers work together to make decisions. For most health care decisions, where there is no ‘best’ option, the most appropriate course of action depends on the clinical evidence and the patient’s informed preferences. In effect, shared decision-making is about reducing information asymmetry, by allowing providers to inform patients about the potential benefits and harms of alternative tests or treatments, and patients to express their preferences to their provider. The goal is to reach agreement on the most appropriate decision for that patient.

My thesis focused on individuals with advanced osteoarthritis who were considering whether to undergo total hip or knee replacement, or use non-surgical treatments such as pain medication, exercise, or mobility aids. Joint replacement alleviates pain and improves mobility for most patients, however, as many as 20-30% of recipients have reported insignificant improvement in symptoms and/or dissatisfaction with results. Shared decision-making can help ensure that those considering joint replacement are aware of alternative treatments and have realistic expectations about the potential benefits and harms of each option.

There are different types of interventions available to help support shared decision-making, some of which target the patient (e.g. patient decision aids) and some of which target providers (e.g. skills training). My thesis focused on a randomized controlled trial that evaluated a pre-consultation patient decision aid, which generated a summary report for the surgeon that outlined the patient’s knowledge, values, and preferences.

How can the use of decision aids influence health care costs?

The use of patient decision aids can impact health care costs in several ways. Some patient decision aids, such as those evaluated in my thesis, are designed for use by patients in preparation for a consultation where a treatment decision is made. Others are designed to be used during the consultation with the provider. There is some evidence that decision aids may increase up-front costs, by increasing the length of consultations, requiring investments to integrate decision aids into routine care, or train clinicians. These interventions may impact downstream costs by influencing treatment decision-making. For example, the Cochrane review of patient decision aids found that, across 18 studies in major elective surgery, those exposed to decision aids were less likely to choose surgery compared to those in usual care (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.00).

This was observed in the trial-based economic evaluation which constituted the first chapter of my thesis. This analysis found that decision aids were highly cost-effective, largely due to a smaller proportion of patients undergoing joint replacement. Of course, this conclusion could change over time. One of the challenges of previous cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of patient decision aids has been a lack of long-term follow-up. Patients who choose not to have surgery over the short-term may go on to have surgery later. To look at the longer-term impact of decision aids, the third chapter of my thesis linked trial participants to administrative data with an average of 7-years follow-up. I found that, from a resource use perspective, the conclusion was the same as observed during the trial: fewer patients exposed to decision aids had undergone surgery, resulting in lower costs.

What is it about shared decision-making that patients value?

On the whole, the evidence suggests that patients value being informed, listened to, and offered the opportunity to participate in decision-making (should they wish!). To better understand how much shared decision-making is valued, I performed a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) that had valued elements of shared decision-making. This review found that survey respondents (primarily patients) were willing to wait longer, pay, and in some cases willing to accept poorer health outcomes for greater shared decision-making.

It is important to consider preference heterogeneity in this context. The last chapter of my PhD performed a DCE to value shared decision-making in the context of advanced knee osteoarthritis. The DCE included three attributes: waiting time, health outcomes, and shared decision-making. The latent class analysis found four distinct subgroups of patients. Two groups were balanced, and traded between all attributes, while one group had a strong preference for shared decision-making, and another had a strong preference for better health outcomes. One important finding from this analysis was that having a strong preference for shared decision-making was not associated with demographic or clinical characteristics. This highlights the importance of each clinical encounter in determining the appropriate level of shared decision-making for each patient.

Is it meaningful to estimate the cost-per-QALY of shared decision-making interventions?

One of the challenges of my thesis was grappling with the potential conflict between the objectives of CEA using QALYs (maximizing health) and shared decision-making interventions (improved decision-making). Importantly, encouraging shared decision-making may result in patients choosing alternatives that do not maximize QALYs. For example, informed patients may choose to delay or forego elective surgery due to potential risks, despite it providing more QALYs (on average).

In cases where a CEA finds that shared decision-making interventions result in poorer health outcomes at lower cost, I think this is perfectly acceptable (provided patients are making informed choices). However, it becomes more complicated when shared decision-making interventions increase costs, result in poorer health outcomes, but provide other, non-health benefits such as informing patients or involving them in treatment decisions. In such cases, decision-makers need to consider whether it is justified to allocate scarce health care resources to encourage shared decision-making when it requires sacrificing health outcomes elsewhere. The latter part of my thesis tried to inform this trade-off, by valuing the non-health benefits of shared decision-making which would not otherwise be captured in a CEA that uses QALYs.

How should the valuation framework be extended, and is this likely to indicate different decisions?

I extended the valuation framework by attempting to value non-health benefits of shared decision-making. I followed guidelines from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, which state that “the value of non-health effects should be based on being traded off against health” and that societal preferences be used for this valuation. Requiring non-health benefits to be valued relative to health reflects the opportunity cost of allocating resources toward these outcomes. While these guidelines do not specifically state how to do so, I chose to value shared decision-making relative to life-years using a chained (or two-stage) valuation approach so that they could be incorporated within the QALY.

Ultimately, I found that the value of the process of shared decision-making was small, however, this may have an impact on cost-effectiveness. The reasons for this are twofold. First, there are few cases where shared decision-making interventions improve health outcomes. A 2018 sub-analysis of the Cochrane review of patient decision aids found little evidence that they impact health-related quality of life. Secondly, the up-front cost of implementing shared decision-making interventions may be small. Thus, in cases where shared decision-making interventions require a small investment but provide no health benefit, the non-health value of shared decision-making may impact cost-effectiveness. One recent example from Dr Victoria Brennan found that incorporating process utility associated with improved consultation quality, resulting from a new online assessment tool, increased the probability that the intervention was cost-effective from 35% to 60%.

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