Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 4th February 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.

Patient choice and provider competition – quality enhancing drivers in primary care? Social Science & Medicine Published 29th January 2019

There’s no shortage of studies in economics claiming to identify the impact (or lack of impact) of competition in the market for health care. The evidence has brought us close to a consensus that greater competition might improve quality, so long as providers don’t compete on price. However, many of these studies aren’t able to demonstrate the mechanism through which competition might improve quality, and the causality is therefore speculative. The research reported in this article was an attempt to see whether the supposed mechanisms for quality improvement actually exist. The authors distinguish between the demand-side mechanisms of competition-increasing quality-improving reforms (i.e. changes in patient behaviour) and the supply-side mechanisms (i.e. changes in provider behaviour), asserting that the supply-side has been neglected in the research.

The study is based on primary care in Sweden’s two largest cities, where patients can choose their primary care practice, which could be a private provider. Key is the fact that patients can switch between providers as often as they like, and with fewer barriers to doing so than in the UK. Prospective patients have access to some published quality indicators. With the goal of maximum variation, the researchers recruited 13 primary health care providers for semi-structured interviews with the practice manager and (in most cases) one or more of the practice GPs. The interview protocol included questions about the organisation of patient visits, information received about patients’ choices, market situation, reimbursement, and working conditions. Interview transcripts were coded and a framework established. Two overarching themes were ‘local market conditions’ and ‘feedback from patient choice’.

Most interviewees did not see competitors in the local market as a threat – conversely, providers are encouraged to cooperate on matters such as public health. Where providers did talk about competing, it was in terms of (speed of) access for patients, or in competition to recruit and keep staff. None of the interviewees were automatically informed of patients being removed from their list, and some managers reported difficulties in actually knowing which patients on their list were still genuinely on it. Even where these data were more readily available, nobody had access to information on reasons for patients leaving. Managers saw greater availability of this information as useful for quality improvement, while GPs tended to think it could be useful in ensuring continuity of care. Still, most expressed no desire to expand their market share. Managers reported using marketing efforts in response to greater competition generally, rather than as a response to observed changes within their practice. But most relied on reputation. Some reported becoming more service-minded as a result of choice reforms.

It seems that practices need more information to be able to act on competitive pressures. But, most practices don’t care about it because they don’t want to expand and they face no risk of there being a shortage of patients (in cities, at least). And, even if they did want to act on the information, chances are it would just create an opportunity for them to improve access as a way of cherry-picking younger and healthier people who demand convenience. Primary care providers (in this study, at least) are not income maximisers, but satisficers (they want to break-even), so there isn’t much scope for reforms to encourage providers to compete for new patients. Patient choice reforms may improve quality, but it isn’t clear that this has anything to do with competitive pressure.

Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ [PubMed] Published 24th January 2019

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been touted as a way of improving patient care. Yet, their use around the world is fragmented. In this paper, the authors make some recommendations about how we might use PROMs to improve patient care. The authors summarise some of the benefits of using PROMs and discuss some of the ways that they’ve been used in the UK.

Five key challenges in the use of PROMs are specified: i) appropriate and consistent selection of the best measures; ii) ethical collection and reporting of PROM data; iii) data collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation; iv) data logistics; and v) a lack of coordination and efficiency. To address these challenges, the authors recommend an ‘integrated’ approach. To achieve this, stakeholder engagement is important and a governance framework needs to be developed. A handy table of current uses is provided.

I can’t argue with what the paper proposes, but it outlines an idealised scenario rather than any firm and actionable recommendations. What the authors don’t discuss is the fact that the use of PROMs in the UK is flailing. The NHS PROMs programme has been scaled back, measures have been dropped from the QOF, the EQ-5D has been dropped from the GP Patient Survey. Perhaps we need bolder recommendations and new ideas to turn the tide.

Check your checklist: the danger of over- and underestimating the quality of economic evaluations. PharmacoEconomics – Open [PubMed] Published 24th January 2019

This paper outlines the problems associated with misusing methodological and reporting checklists. The author argues that the current number of checklists available in the context of economic evaluation and HTA (13, apparently) is ‘overwhelming’. Three key issues are discussed. First, researchers choose the wrong checklist. A previous review found that the Drummond, CHEC, and Philips checklists were regularly used in the wrong context. Second, checklists can be overinterpreted, resulting in incorrect conclusions. A complete checklist does not mean that a study is perfect, and different features are of varying importance in different studies. Third, checklists are misused, with researchers deciding which items are or aren’t relevant to their study, without guidance.

The author suggests that more guidance is needed and that a checklist for selecting the correct checklist could be the way to go. The issue of updating checklists over time – and who ought to be responsible for this – is also raised.

In general, the tendency seems to be to broaden the scope of general checklists and to develop new checklists for specific methodologies, requiring the application of multiple checklists. As methods develop, they become increasingly specialised and heterogeneous. I think there’s little hope for checklists in this context unless they’re pared down and used as a reminder of the more complex guidance that’s needed to specify suitable methods and achieve adequate reporting. ‘Check your checklist’ is a useful refrain, though I reckon ‘chuck your checklist’ can sometimes be a better strategy.

A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes [PubMed] Published 21st January 2019

Back to PROMs and PRE(xperience)Ms. This study sets out to understand what it is that patient-reported measures are being used to capture in the context of chronic illness. The authors conducted a systematic review, screening 2,375 articles and ultimately including 107 articles that investigated the measurement properties of chronic (physical) illness PROMs and PREMs.

29 questionnaires were about (health-related) quality of life, 19 about functional status or symptoms, 20 on feelings and attitudes about illness, 19 assessing attitudes towards health care, and 20 on patient experience. The authors provide some nice radar charts showing the percentage of questionnaires that included each of 12 dimensions: i) physical, ii) functional, iii) social, iv) psychological, v) illness perceptions, vi) behaviours and coping, vii) effects of treatment, viii) expectations and satisfaction, ix) experience of health care, x) beliefs and adherence to treatment, xi) involvement in health care, and xii) patient’s knowledge.

The study supports the idea that a patient’s lived experience of illness and treatment, and adaptation to that, has been judged to be important in addition to quality of life indicators. The authors recommend that no measure should try to capture everything because there are simply too many concepts that could be included. Rather, researchers should specify the domains of interest and clearly define them for instrument development.

Credits

 

Paul Mitchell’s journal round-up for 17th July 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.

What goes wrong with the allocation of domestic and international resources for HIV? Health Economics [PubMedPublished 7th July 2017

Investment in foreign aid is coming under considered scrutiny as a number of leading western economies re-evaluate their role in the world and their obligations to countries with developing economies. Therefore, it is important for those who believe in the benefits of such investments to show that they are being done efficiently. This paper looks at how funding for HIV is distributed both domestically and internationally across countries, using multivariate regression analysis with instruments to control for reverse causality between financing and HIV prevalence, and domestic and international financing. The author is also concerned about countries free riding on international aid and estimates how countries ought to be allocating national resources to HIV using quintile regression to estimate what countries have fiscal space for expanding their current spending domestically. The results of the study show that domestic expenditure relative to GDP per capita is almost unit elastic, whereas it is inelastic with regards to HIV prevalence. Government effectiveness (as defined by the World Bank indices) has a statistically significant effect on domestic expenditure, although it is nonlinear, with gains more likely when moving up from a lower level of government effectiveness. International expenditure is inversely related to GDP per capita and HIV prevalence, and positively with government effectiveness, albeit the regression models for international expenditure had poor explanatory power. Countries with higher GDP per capita tended to dedicate more money towards HIV, however, the author reckons there is $3bn of fiscal space in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria to contribute more to HIV, freeing up international aid for other countries such as Cameroon, Ghana, Thailand, Pakistan and Columbia. The author is concerned that countries with higher GDP should be able to allocate more to HIV, but feels there are improvements to be made in how international aid is distributed too. Although there is plenty of food for thought in this paper, I was left wondering how this analysis can help in aiding a better allocation of resources. The normative model of what funding for HIV ought to be is from the viewpoint that this is the sole objective of countries of allocating resources, which is clearly contestable (the author even casts doubt as to whether this is true for international funding of HIV). Perhaps the other demands faced by national governments (e.g. funding for other diseases, education etc.) can be better reflected in future research in this area.

Can pay-for-performance to primary care providers stimulate appropriate use of antibiotics? Health Economics [PubMed] [RePEcPublished 7th July 2017

Antibiotic resistance is one of the largest challenges facing global health this century. This study from Sweden looks to see whether pay for performance (P4P) can have a role in the prescription practices of GPs when it comes to treating children with respiratory tract infection. P4P was introduced on a staggered basis across a number of regions in Sweden to incentivise primary care to use narrow spectrum penicillin as a first line treatment, as it is said to have a smaller impact on resistance. Taking advantage of data from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register between 2006-2013, the authors conducted a difference in difference regression analysis to show the effect P4P had on the share of the incentivised antibiotic. They find a positive main effect of P4P on drug prescribing of 1.1 percentage points, that is also statistically significant. Of interest, the P4P in Sweden under analysis here was not directly linked to salaries of GPs but the health care centre. Although there are a number of limitations with the study that the authors clearly highlight in the discussion, it is a good example of how to make the most of routinely available data. It also highlights that although the share of the less resistant antibiotic went up, the national picture of usage of antibiotics did not reduce in line with a national policy aimed at doing so during the same time period. Even though Sweden is reported to be one of the lower users of antibiotics in Europe, it highlights the need to carefully think through how targets are achieved and where incentives might help in some areas to meet such targets.

Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: the switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Health Economics Published 4th July 2017

The EQ-5D is the most frequently used health state descriptive system for the generation of utility values for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in economic evaluation. To improve sensitivity and reduce floor and ceiling effects, the EuroQol team developed a five level version (5L) compared to the previous three level (3L) version. This study adds to recent evidence in this area of the unforeseen consequences of making this change to the descriptive system and also the valuation system used for the 5L. Using data from the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases, where both 3L and 5L versions were completed simultaneously alongside other clinical measures, the authors construct a mapping between both versions of EQ-5D, informed by the response levels and the valuation systems that have been developed in the UK for the measures. They also test their mapping estimates on a previous economic evaluation for rheumatoid arthritis treatments. The descriptive results show that although there is a high correlation between both versions, and the 5L version achieves its aim of greater sensitivity, there is a systematic difference in utility scores generated using both versions, with an average 87% of the score of the 3L recorded compared to the 5L. Not only are there differences highlighted between value sets for the 3L and 5L but also the responses to dimensions across measures, where the mobility and pain dimensions do not align as one would expect. The new mapping developed in this paper highlights some of the issues with previous mapping methods used in practice, including the assumption of independence of dimension levels from one another that was used while the new valuation for the 5L was being developed. Although the case study they use to demonstrate the effect of using the different approaches in practice did not result in a different cost-effectiveness result, the study does manage to highlight that the assumption of 3L and 5L versions being substitutes for one another, both in terms of descriptive systems and value sets, does not hold. Although the authors are keen to highlight the benefits of their new mapping that produces a smooth distribution from actual to predicted 5L, decision makers will need to be clear about what descriptive system they now want for the generation of QALYs, given the discrepancies between 3L and 5L versions of EQ-5D, so that consistent results are obtained from economic evaluations.

Credits