As he explained during the recent Rosenkranz Prize Symposium, Stefano M. Bertozzi used this slogan to promote health reform in the Mexico City prison system. By encouraging inmates to step up and get themselves tested for HIV and other chronic illnesses, Bertozzi, dean and professor of health policy and management at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, was able to decrease the spread of illnesses in Mexican prisons and the surrounding communities.
The Rosenkranz Prize Symposium celebrated research projects that—like Bertozzi’s—address the health care needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations. With support from the Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, Stanford scholars have stepped up to tackle health issues in regions in need.
Since 2010, the award has funded six young Stanford researchers who aim to improve health in developing countries. The symposium celebrated their achievements.
The award honors the work of Dr. George Rosenkranz who spent his career reducing health disparities around the globe. Rosenkranz, who was the first to synthesize cortisone and the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, also celebrated his 100th birthday at the symposium.
Producing research that will increase care for vulnerable populations globally is the ultimate goal of the Rosenkranz Prize.
Andrés Moreno-Estrada, the 2012 winner, has used the award to study genetics in Latin American and Caribbean populations, aiming to increase knowledge of potential genetic illnesses. He said, “The Rosenkranz Prize is a clear, important step forward to demonstrate that we can do cutting edge science in developing countries that is of international relevance.”
Other winners include Eran Bendavid, Sanjay Basu, Marcella Alsan, Jason Andrews and Ami Bhatt. Their projects range from the effect of AIDS relief efforts on health care delivery to the treatment of diabetes in India to low-cost diagnostic tools for regions lacking infrastructure.
“I can’t think of a better way to celebrate (my father’s) birthday than listening to the bright future of science,” said Ricardo T. Rosenkranz, son of Dr. George Rosenkranz and a prize donor. “We can’t wait to hear what the next Rosenkranz Prize winners tell us.”
Dr. George Rosenkranz celebrated his 100th birthday at the symposium. The first to synthesize cortisone as well as the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, Rosenkranz spent his life reducing health disparities around the globe.
An independent panel of medical experts has updated 20-year-old guidelines for evaluating cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, in an effort to help everyone from policymakers to patients make more informed decisions about tests and treatments.
Released in a special communication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the panelists spent more than three years building on the work of the 1996 Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, originally convened by the U.S. Public Health Service. They developed recommendations by consensus.
The new recommendations are intended to guide decision-makers in using new methods for analyzing evidence, reporting standardized results, incorporating both health-care system and societal perspectives, as well as weighing ethical issues in the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).
“Some people question the use of economic analyses in health care, but cost-effective analysis is a way to ensure that we are proving high-value care,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, a professor of medicine and senior investigator of the VA Palo Alto Heath Care System, who sat on the panel.
“If we do interventions without understanding their value, we may well spend money on something that may not really be worth it,” said Owens. “Cost effectiveness analysis is one approach to understanding how we can help control health-care costs and provide high-value health care.”
Image
The panel was led by co-chairs Gillian D. Sanders, Professor in the Department of Medicine and a member of both the Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Peter J. Neumann, Director, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University.
Sanders said CEA could help inform decisions about how to apply new or existing medical tests, therapies, and prevention techniques so that decision-makers use health-care resources wisely.
“As health-care costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates, these recommendations provide a framework for comparing the relative value of different health-care interventions, and help decision-makers across the spectrum from policymakers to patients sort through alternatives and decide what tests and treatments make sense,” she said.
Neumann noted that in the 20 years since the original panel’s report, the field of cost-effectiveness analysis has advanced, as has the need to deliver health-care efficiently.
“Updating the guidelines provides an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers,” he said.
Primarily funded by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the panel recommends several key changes to the guidelines, while confirming other principles from the first panel, including:
Broadening the scope and number of reference cases in a cost analysis, which describe standard methodology that should be followed to ensure quality analysis by creating comparable measurements. The panel is recommending that all CEAs should not report two reference cases: one based on a health-care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective.
Using an “impact inventory” that lists the health and non-health effects of a health-care intervention to ensure that all consequences are considered, including those to patients, caregivers, social services and others outside the health-care sector. This tool also allows analysts to look at categories of impacts that may be most important to stakeholders.
Measuring health effects in terms of quality adjusted life years, a common measure used by health researchers that includes both the quality and quantity of life lived.
Including both costs reimbursed by third-party payers and those paid for out-of-pocket by patients in health-care sector analyses.
Including a reporting checklist and guidelines for transparency that includes assumptions in any analysis and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
The complete report of the so-called Second Panel will be published in October.
The panelists noted that the field of CEA has emerged dramatically since the last guidelines 20 years ago. For example, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, which establishes national immunization policy recommendations on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now uses CEA in its calculations.
“The need to deliver health-care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health, have only increased,” the Second Panel authors wrote in the JAMA paper.
Health-care spending in the United States comprised 13 percent of GDP in 1995; today it approaches 18 percent. And the total national health expenditures have tripled during that period, jumping to more than $3 trillion in 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
“The goal of the Second Panel is to promote the continued evolution of CEA and its use to support judicious, efficient, and fair decisions regarding the use of health-care resources,” the experts wrote in the JAMA article.
Sex differences in mortality vary over time and place as a function of social, health, and medical circumstances. The magnitude of these variations, and their response to large socioeconomic changes, suggest that biological differences cannot fully account for sex differences in survival. Drawing on a wide swath of mortality data across countries and over time, we develop a set of empiric observations with which any theory about excess male mortality and its correlates will have to contend. We show that as societies develop, M/F survival first declines and then increases, a “sex difference in mortality transition” embedded within the demographic and epidemiologic transitions. After the onset of this transition, cross-sectional variation in excess male mortality exhibits a consistent pattern of greater female resilience to mortality under socio-economic adversity. The causal mechanisms underlying these associations merit further research.
This event has reached capacity. Please join us to watch the live-stream at this link.
The symposium will focus on the key questions that impact health through the year 2020. How could the 2016 election affect health care in the U.S.? How will payment reform affect health systems, physicians and patients? Are the insurance exchanges viable? What challenges pose the biggest threat to global health? Experts from Stanford and beyond address these topics and more as they discuss the future of health policy.
Lloyd Minor, Dean, Stanford University School of Medicine
Image
Minor, MD, is a scientist, surgeon and academic leader. He is the Carl and Elizabeth Naumann Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, a position he has held since December 2012. Minor leads more than 1,500 faculty and 1,000 students at the oldest medical school in the West and has made precision health — the prevention of disease before it strikes — a hallmark of research, education and patient care at Stanford Medicine.
Bob Kocher,a partner at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Venrock
Bob Kocher
Kocher, MD, is a partner at Venrock who focuses on healthcare IT and services investments and is a consulting professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. He served in the Obama Administration as special assistant to the president for health care and economic policy and was one of the key shapers of the Affordable Care Act.
David Entwistle, President and CEO, Stanford Health Care
Image
Entwistle joined Stanford Health Care as its President and CEO in July, bringing extensive executive experience at leading academic medical centers. Most recently he served as CEO of the University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, the only academic medical center in the Intermountain West region. While serving at UUHC, Entwistle received the Modern Healthcare “Up and Comers Award,” for significant contributions in health-care administration, management or policy.
Chris Dawes, President and CEO, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Image
Christopher G. Dawes became President and Chief Executive Officer of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford in 1997 after five years of service as Chief Operating Officer. Under his guidance, the hospital, research center and regional medical network has been ranked as one of the best in the nation, as an industry leader in patient safety and innovation in providing a full complement of services for children and expectant mothers.
Panelists:
Marcella Alsan, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Marcella Alsan’s research focuses on the relationship between health and socioeconomic disparities with a focus on infectious disease. Another vein of research focuses on the microfoundations of antibiotic overuse and resistance. She received a BA degree in cognitive neuroscience from Harvard University, a master’s degree in international public health from Harvard School of Public Health, a medical degree from Loyola University, and a PhD in economics from Harvard University. She is board-certified in both internal medicine and infectious disease. She trained at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, completing the Hiatt Global Health Equity Residency Fellowship in internal medicine. She combined her PhD with an Infectious Disease Fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital. She currently is an infectious disease specialist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto.
Laurence Baker, Chair of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Laurence Baker is an economist interested in the organization and economic performance of the U.S. health-care system, and his research has investigated a range of topics including financial incentives in health care, competition in health-care markets, health insurance and managed care and health-care technology adoption. Baker is a past recipient of the ASHE medal from ASHEcon and the Alice Hersch Award from AcademyHealth. He received his BA from Calvin College, and his MA and PhD in economics from Princeton University.
Eran Bendavid, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Eran Bendavid is an infectious diseases physician. His research interests involve understanding the relationship between policies and health outcomes in developing countries. He explores how decisions about foreign assistance for health are made, and how those decisions affect the health of those whom assistance aims to serve. Dr. Bendavid is also a disease modeler, and uses that skill to explore issues of resource allocation in low and middle-income countries with cost-effectiveness analyses. His recent research projects include an impact evaluation of the US assistance program for HIV in Africa, and an exploration of the association between drug prices, aid and health outcomes in countries heavily affected by HIV.
Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Jay Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the constraints that vulnerable populations face in making decisions that affect their health status, as well as the effects of government policies and programs designed to benefit vulnerable populations. He has published empirical economics and health services research on the elderly, adolescents, HIV/AIDS and managed care. Most recently, he has researched the regulation of the viatical-settlements market (a secondary life-insurance market that often targets HIV patients) and summer/winter differences in nutritional outcomes for low-income American families. He is also working on a project examining the labor-market conditions that help determine why some U.S. employers do not provide health insurance.
M. Kate Bundorf, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
M. Kate Bundorf is a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She received her M.B.A. and M.P.H. degrees from The University of California at Berkeley and her Ph.D. from The Wharton School. She was a Fulbright Lecturer and Visiting Professor at Fudan School of Public Health in Shanghai, China in 2009 and 2010. Her research, which focuses on health insurance markets, has been published in leading economics and health policy journals and has received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She received the 13th Annual Health Care Research Award from The National Institute for Health Care Management in 2007.
David Chan, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
David Chan is a physician and economist whose research focuses on productivity in US health care. His research draws on insights from labor and organizational economics. He is particularly interested in studying what drives physician behavior, how this explains differences in productivity in health care delivery, and what the implications are for the design of health care. He is the recipient of the 2014 NIH Director’s High-Risk, High-Reward Early Independence Award to study the optimal balance of information in health information technology for patient care. David Chan is also an investigator at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kathryn M. McDonald, Executive Director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University
Kathryn McDonald, MM, is the Executive Director of the Center for Health Policy (CHP) and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) and a senior scholar at the Centers. She is also Associate Director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center (under RAND). Her work focuses on measures and interventions to achieve evidence-based patient-centered healthcare quality and patient safety. Mrs. McDonald has served as a project director and principal investigator on a number of research projects at the Stanford School of Medicine, including the development and ongoing enhancement of the Quality and Patient Safety Indicators for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has authored numerous peer reviewed articles and government reports, including several with wide enough followership to merit recent updates: Care Coordination Measures Atlas, Closing the Quality Gap, and Patient Safety Practices.
Michelle Mello, Professor of Law and of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Michelle Mello is Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Professor of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. She conducts empirical research into issues at the intersection of law, ethics, and health policy. She is the author of more than 150 articles and book chapters on the medical malpractice system, medical errors and patient safety, public health law, research ethics, the obesity epidemic, pharmaceuticals, and other topics. From 2000 to 2014, Dr. Mello was a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, where she directed the School’s Program in Law and Public Health. In 2013-14 she completed a Lab Fellowship at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. Dr. Mello teaches courses in torts and public health law. She holds a J.D. from the Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in Health Policy and Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an M.Phil. from Oxford University, where she was a Marshall Scholar, and a B.A. from Stanford University. In 2013, she was elected to the National Academy of Medicine (formerly known as the Institute of Medicine).
Grant Miller, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Grant Miller is Director of the Stanford Center for International Development, an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine, a Core Faculty Member at the Center for Health Policy/Primary Care and Outcomes Research, a Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). His primary interests are health economics, development economics, and economic demography. As a health and development economist based at the Stanford Medical School, Dr. Miller’s overarching focus is research and teaching aimed at developing more effective health improvement strategies for developing countries. His agenda addresses three major interrelated themes. (1) First, what are the major causes of population health improvement around the world and over time? (2) Second, what are the behavioral underpinnings of the major determinants of population health improvement? (3) Third, how can programs and policies use these behavioral insights to improve population health more effectively?
Douglas K. Owens, Director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University
Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, is the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr., Professor at Stanford University, where he is a professor of medicine. He is director of the Center for Health Policy in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and director of the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) in the Department of Medicine. He is a general internist and associate director of the Center for Innovation to Implementation at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. A past member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, he has helped lead the development of national U.S. guidelines on screening for HIV, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and use of aspirin and statins to prevent cardiovascular disease.
Maria Polyakova, Assistant Professor of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Maria Polyakova, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Health Research and Policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Her research investigates questions surrounding the role of government in the design and financing of health insurance systems. She is especially interested in the relationships between public policies and individuals’ decision-making in health care and health insurance, as well as in the risk protection and re-distributive aspects of health insurance systems. She received a BA degree in Economics and Mathematics from Yale University and a PhD in Economics from MIT.
David M. Studdert, Professor of Medicine and of Law, Stanford University
David M. Studdert is a leading expert in the fields of health law and empirical legal research. His scholarship explores how the legal system influences the health and well-being of populations. A prolific scholar, he has authored more than 150 articles and book chapters, and his work appears frequently in leading international medical, law and health policy publications. Professor Studdert has received the Alice S. Hersh New Investigator Award from AcademyHealth, the leading organization for health services and health policy research in the United States. He was awarded a Federation Fellowship (2006) and a Laureate Fellowship (2011) by the Australian Research Council. He holds a law degree from University of Melbourne and a doctoral degree in health policy and public health from the Harvard School of Public Health.
When is the last time you took a good, hard look at your health insurance options? Do you know what changes were made to your plan last year?
If the answer is “no,” you are not alone.
According to a new study by Maria Polyakova, assistant professor of health research and policy and Stanford Health Policy core faculty member, most Medicare Part D enrollees do not change their plans from year to year — even though plans can change drastically.
The study, recently published in the American Economic Journal: Applied, asserts that nudging consumers to re-evaluate their coverage could save them around $500 per year in out of pocket spending and premiums.
What is Medicare Part D?
Implemented in 2006, Part D allows Medicare users to purchase prescription drug coverage. Plans are administered by private insurance companies, but are heavily subsidized and regulated by the federal government. Consumers choose from more than 30 plans in their home state and are able to switch during a yearly open-enrollment period.
About 40 million people in the United States are enrolled in a Part D plan.
But Polyakova finds that “people do not seem to be switching contracts very often. At the same time, the contracts are changing quite dramatically every year.”
Though the study does not examine why consumers failed to switch, the data suggests that changing plans can be costly. Not necessarily a financial cost, but likely one of time or energy.
Thoroughly examining more than 30 plans on a yearly basis can be a burden, and changes are not always easy to detect.
“There are many other features of Part D plans that may change, so even if premiums appear the same, insurers may have changed other parts of coverage, such as deductible levels, co-pays and co-insurance, as well as which drugs are included,” said Polyakova.
Because the Part D market as a whole is dynamic, consumers can lose money even when their plan is stable.
“Even if your specific plan doesn’t change much, it is possible that it is not the best plan anymore because other plans change.”
Consumers tend to stick with the plan they picked when they first signed up. As a result, the study observes that individuals with similar needs may find themselves enrolled in very different plans if they made their first enrollment choices in different years.
This suggests that while most people likely try to pick the best coverage initially, they do not tend to re-evaluate their coverage each year in a way that fits their needs.
How can we improve coverage choices?
Polyakova believes that if the U.S. government were to more actively remind people to re-examine their plans during open enrollment, they could save consumers 20 to 30 percent.
Some researchers worry that improving individual choices and encouraging consumers to update their coverage could negatively affect the insurance market through “adverse selection.”
For example, individuals who are fairly healthy might tend to choose less generous plans than those who are relatively sick. If all those in poorer health end up in one plan, and there are no relatively low-spending enrollees to counteract the risk, the generous plan can become unsustainable.
However, the study finds evidence suggesting that for Part D, reminders to re-examine plans are unlikely to cause issues from adverse selection.
The federal government has implemented risk adjustment policies, or ways to combat the negative effects of adverse selection, that work to keep the market from unraveling. The government provides higher subsidies for sicker patients, pays the majority of patient costs and caps insurers’ profits and losses.
“From the point of view of the government, it seems that it is worthwhile to remind people who are already enrolled to reconsider their choices and potentially explain the differences across plans,” said Polyakova.
As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) changes coverage for Part D plans, reminding enrollees to re-examine their choices will become even more important. The ACA will substantially increase coverage, and plans could change considerably as a result.
What does this mean for the health insurance market?
While the study focuses specifically on Medicare Part D, Polyakova believes these findings likely translate to other areas of health insurance, particularly coverage under the ACA, which has many similar policies.
“The idea that we should remind consumers to re-evaluate plans has already been quite influential in the ACA policy debate,” said Polyakova. “Policymakers are tracking whether consumers are switching plans from one year to the next.”
She argues that in a consumer-driven economy, people must be able to easily make choices between products, in this case health insurance plans, for the market to function. But because choosing takes so much time and plan features are not always transparent, the forces driving the market may become weak.
Educating people about the financial benefits of switching plans could help the insurance market get back on track.
“People should try to reconsider their health risk and their insurance choices during every enrollment period,” Polyakova said. “Because if they don’t, it could have serious financial implications.”
The Asia Health Policy Program at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in collaboration with scholars from Stanford Health Policy's Center on Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Next World Program, is soliciting papers for the third annual workshop on the economics of ageing titled Financing Longevity: The Economics of Pensions, Health Insurance, Long-term Care and Disability Insurance held at Stanford from April 24-25, 2017, and for a related special issue of the Journal of the Economics of Ageing.
The triumph of longevity can pose a challenge to the fiscal integrity of public and private pension systems and other social support programs disproportionately used by older adults. High-income countries offer lessons – frequently cautionary tales – for low- and middle-income countries about how to design social protection programs to be sustainable in the face of population ageing. Technological change and income inequality interact with population ageing to threaten the sustainability and perceived fairness of conventional financing for many social programs. Promoting longer working lives and savings for retirement are obvious policy priorities; but in many cases the fiscal challenges are even more acute for other social programs, such as insurance systems for medical care, long-term care, and disability. Reform of entitlement programs is also often politically difficult, further highlighting how important it is for developing countries putting in place comprehensive social security systems to take account of the macroeconomic implications of population ageing.
The objective of the workshop is to explore the economics of ageing from the perspective of sustainable financing for longer lives. The workshop will bring together researchers to present recent empirical and theoretical research on the economics of ageing with special (yet not exclusive) foci on the following topics:
Public and private roles in savings and retirement security
Living and working in an Age of Longevity: Lessons for Finance
Defined benefit, defined contribution, and innovations in design of pension programs
Intergenerational and equity implications of different financing mechanisms for pensions and social insurance
The impact of population aging on health insurance financing
Economic incentives of long-term care insurance and disability insurance systems
Precautionary savings and social protection system generosity
Elderly cognitive function and financial planning
Evaluation of policies aimed at increasing health and productivity of older adults
Population ageing and financing economic growth
Tax policies’ implications for capital deepening and investment in human capital
The relationship between population age structure and capital market returns
Evidence on policies designed to address disparities – gender, ethnic/racial, inter-regional, urban/rural – in old-age support
The political economy of reforming pension systems as well as health, long-term care and disability insurance programs
Submission for the workshop
Interested authors are invited to submit a 1-page abstract by Sept. 30, 2016, to Karen Eggleston at karene@stanford.edu. The authors of accepted abstracts will be notified by Oct. 15, 2016, and completed draft papers will be expected by April 1, 2017.
Economy-class travel and accommodation costs for one author of each accepted paper will be covered by the organizers.
Invited authors are expected to submit their paper to theJournal of the Economics of Ageing. A selection of these papers will (assuming successful completion of the review process) be published in a special issue.
Submission to the special issue
Authors (also those interested who are not attending the workshop) are invited to submit papers for the special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing by Aug. 1, 2017. Submissions should be made online. Please select article type “SI Financing Longevity.”
About the Next World Program
The Next World Program is a joint initiative of Harvard University’s Program on the Global Demography of Aging, the WDA Forum, Stanford’s Asia Health Policy Program, and Fudan University’s Working Group on Comparative Ageing Societies. These institutions organize an annual workshop and a special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing on an important economic theme related to ageing societies.
Stanford Health Policy's Marcella Alsan — an economist and professor of medicine — and her colleague, Marianne Wanamaker at the University of Tennessee, have published a working paper with the National Bureau of Economic Research about the correlation between the Tuskegee Study and the medical mistrust among African-American men today. This blog looks at the media coverage the paper has received.
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, after lung cancer, yet many Americans are still loathe to be screened for the disease.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force strongly recommended adults ages 50 to 75 to be screened for colon cancer and suggested adults 76 to 85 make individual decisions about whether to be screened, depending on their overall health and prior screening history. The recommendation and several accompanying editorials were published Wednesay in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The independent body of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine emphasized colonoscopy is not the only valid test out there. There are multiple screening options available to the one-third of Americans over 50 who have never been screened.
What is the most significant finding of this final recommendation?
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States. The good news is that evidence convincingly shows screening for colorectal cancer works. The Task Force strongly recommends screening adults 50 to 75 for colorectal cancer, as it reduces the risk of dying from the disease. Unfortunately, one-third of people 50 to 75 have never been screened, so we are missing an important opportunity to prevent deaths from colorectal cancer.
There are multiple screening options for colorectal cancer. What are they and how should individuals decide which is best for them?
What really matters is that people get screened. There are several options that are effective, so we recommend that people discuss the options with their clinician. There are direct visualization tests, like colonoscopy, and stool-based tests, like fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Each test has different strengths and limitations, and people may prefer one approach over another. For example, colonoscopy can be done every 10 years, but FIT testing should be done every year. But the real message is, choose an approach in consultation with your clinician and get screened.
The Task Force found that once adults reach 76 years old, the benefits of screening become smaller and the potential for harm is greater. Why is this and how should older Americans determine which test is best for them?
We recommend individual decision making for patients 76 to 85. The benefits are smaller because a person’s chance of dying of other causes goes up as they get older. The harms are still small but increase with age, primarily because the risks of the potential complications of colonoscopy (bleeding, perforation, and infection) go up with age. Still, some people in this age group will benefit from screening. People most likely to benefit are those who have not been screened before, people who are healthy enough to undergo treatment for CRC should it be found, and people who do not have other diseases or conditions that limit their life expectancy substantially.
Owens explains the Task Force's recommendations to JAMA
African-Americans have the highest incidence of and mortality rates from colorectal cancer among all racial and ethnic subgroups. Why are African-Americans more susceptible and does this mean that the screening recommendations differ for them?
The Task Force recognizes the burden that colorectal cancer has on African-Americans, who are at higher risk of being diagnosed with and dying from the disease than other racial/ethnic subgroups. We don’t know why this is — more research is needed in this area. The Task Force did not find enough evidence to conclusively support that making a different recommendation specific to African-Americans would result in a greater net benefit for this population. So our recommendations are intended to apply to all racial/ethnic groups. More robust efforts are needed to ensure that at-risk populations actually receive the screening tests and the follow-up treatments or interventions they need, as people are dying unnecessarily from this disease.
What data did the Task Force use to come to its conclusions?
The Task Force commissioned a comprehensive systematic review of the available evidence on the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening. The Task Force also commissioned a modeling study from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to help it better understand different screening strategies, such as the optimal age to start or stop screening, and the length of time between screenings. The evidence is convincing that screening reduces the risk of dying from colorectal cancer.
Who is at high risk for colorectal cancer?
The Task Force’s recommendation is for people at average risk of colorectal cancer. People at high risk include those with a history of genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer (including people with Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis), and people with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, a previous adenomatous polyp, or previous colorectal cancer. Other groups have developed guidelines for people a high risk, including the U.S. Multisociety Task Force and the American Cancer Society.
How can precision health help colorectal cancer prevention?
The Task Force did not address how precision health might play a role in the future. However, we do know that although most cases of colorectal cancer are sporadic, with about 75 percent developing in average risk persons, there are inherited syndromes that increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The inherited familial syndromes, defined by a mutation in a known high-risk cancer susceptibility gene, that increase the risk of colorectal cancer include Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis. Family history that is not linked to a known inherited risk syndrome is also a risk factor for colorectal cancer, with an average two- to four-fold increase in risk compared to those people who do not have a family history of colorectal cancer. Understanding more about the causes of this increase in risk is an important area for future research.
What can help reduce one’s risk for colorectal cancer?
The Task Force released a final recommendation in April 2016 on the use of aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer in people with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. For adults ages 50 to 59 years with a greater than 10 percent risk of a cardiovascular event, a life expectancy of at least 10 years, who are not at increased risk for bleeding, and who are willing to take a daily aspirin for at least 10 years, the Task Force recommends the daily use of low-dose aspirin. In this group, aspirin reduces both the risk of cardiovascular disease and the risk of colorectal cancer. It’s important to recognize that the Task Force’s recommendation on colorectal cancer screening is a complement to this recommendation, but neither is a replacement for the other. The Task Force is not suggesting that anyone should use aspirin in place of colorectal cancer screening. Colorectal cancer screening is an important, well-proven preventive intervention that reduces the risk of dying from colorectal cancer.
What symptoms usually present for patients with polyps or colorectal cancer?
It’s important to understand that people with colorectal cancer may have no symptoms whatsoever, and the Task Force’s recommendations are for people without symptoms. Symptoms can include blood in the stool or a change in bowel habits. If people have such symptoms, they should discuss them with their clinician.
What treatment options are available for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer? How have these options changed over time?
The Task Force did not examine treatment options in its final recommendations, as its focus is solely on preventive services such as screening. However, based on my professional experience I can attest that treatment depends on the extent of cancer and may involve surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.
The U.S. government has invested $1.4 billion in HIV prevention programs that promote sexual abstinence and marital fidelity, but there is no evidence that these programs have been effective at changing sexual behavior and reducing HIV risk, according to a new Stanford University School of Medicine study.
Since 2004, the U.S. President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, has supported local initiatives that encourage men and women to limit their number of sexual partners and delay their first sexual experience and, in the process, help to reduce the number of teen pregnancies. However, in a study of nearly 500,000 individuals in 22 countries, the researchers could not find any evidence that these initiatives had an impact on changing individual behavior.
Although PEPFAR has been gradually reducing its support for abstinence and fidelity programs, the researchers suggest that the remaining $50 million or so in annual funding for such programs could have greater health benefits if spent on effective HIV prevention methods. Their findings were published online May 2 and in the May issue of Health Affairs.
“Overall we were not able to detect any population-level benefit from this program,” said Nathan Lo, a Stanford MD/PhD student and lead author of the study. “We did not detect any effect of PEPFAR funding on the number of sexual partners or upon the age of sexual intercourse. And we did not detect any effect on the proportion of teen pregnancy.
“We believe funding should be considered for programs that have a stronger evidence basis,” he added.
A Human Cost
Senior author Eran Bendavid, MD, said the ineffective use of these funds has a human cost because it diverts money away from other valuable, risk-reduction efforts, such as male circumcision and methods to prevent transmission from mothers to their children.
“Spending money and having no effect is a pretty costly thing because the money could be used elsewhere to save lives,” said Bendavid, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford and a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy.
PEPFAR was launched in 2004 by President George W. Bush with a five-year, $15 billion investment in global AIDS treatment and prevention in 15 countries. The program has had some demonstrated success: A 2012 study by Bendavid showed that it had reduced mortality rates and saved 740,000 lives in nine of the targeted countries between 2004 and 2008.
However, the program’s initial requirement that one-third of the prevention funds be dedicated to abstinence and “be faithful” programs has been highly controversial. Critics questioned whether this approach could work and argued that focusing only on these methods would deprive people of information on other potentially lifesaving options, such as condom use, male circumcision and ways to prevent mother-to-child transmission, and divert resources from these and other proven prevention measures.
Abstinence, Faithfulness Funding Continues
In 2008, when President Barack Obama came into office, the one-third requirement was eliminated, but U.S. funds continued to flow to abstinence and “be faithful” programs, albeit at lower levels. In 2008, $260 million was committed to these programs, but by 2013 by that figure had fallen to $45 million.
Spending money and having no effect is a pretty costly thing because the money could be used elsewhere to save lives.
Although PEPFAR continues to fund abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of its broader behavior-based prevention efforts, there is no routine evaluation of the success of these programs. “We hope our work will emphasize the difficulty in changing sexual behavior and the need to measure the impact of these programs if they are going to continue to be funded,” Lo said.
While many in the medical community were critical of the abstinence-fidelity component, no one had ever analyzed its real-world impact, Lo said. When he presented the results of the study in February at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infection, he received rousing applause from the scientists in the audience, some of whom came to the microphone to congratulate him on the work.
To measure the program’s effectiveness, Lo and his colleagues used data from the Demographic and Health Surveys, a detailed database with individual and household statistics related to population, health, HIV and nutrition. The scientists reviewed the records of nearly 500,000 men and women in 14 of the PEPFAR-targeted countries in sub-Saharan Africa that received funds for abstinence-fidelity programs and eight non-PEPFAR nations in the region. They compared changes in risk behaviors between individuals who were living in countries with U.S.-funded programs and those who were not.
The scientists included data from 1998 through 2013 so they could measure changes before and after the program began. They also controlled for country differences, including gross domestic product, HIV prevalence and contraceptive prevalence, and for individuals’ ages, education, whether they lived in an urban or rural environment, and wealth. All of the individuals in the study were younger than 30.
Number of Sexual Partners
In one measure, the scientists looked at the number of sexual partners reported by individuals in the previous year. Among the 345,000 women studied, they found essentially no difference in the number of sexual partners among those living in PEPFAR-supported countries compared with those living in areas not reached by PEPFAR programs. The same was true for the more than 132,000 men in the study.
Changing sexual behavior is not an easy thing. These are very personal decisions.
The researchers also looked at the age of first sexual intercourse among 178,000 women and more than 71,000 men. Among women, they found a slightly later age of intercourse among women living in PEPFAR countries versus those in non-PEPFAR countries, but the difference was slight — fewer than four months — and not statistically significant. Again, no difference was found among the men.
Finally, they examined teenage pregnancy rates among a total of 27,000 women in both PEPFAR-funded and nonfunded countries and found no difference in rates between the two.
Bendavid noted that, in any setting, it is difficult to change sexual behavior. For instance, a 2012 federal Centers for Disease Control analysis of U.S.-based abstinence programs found they had little impact in altering high-risk sexual practices in this country.
“Changing sexual behavior is not an easy thing,” Bendavid said. “These are very personal decisions. When individuals make decisions about sex, they are not typically thinking about the billboard they may have seen or the guy who came by the village and said they should wait until marriage. Behavioral change is much more complicated than that.”
Level of Education
The one factor that the researchers found to be clearly related to sexual behavior, particularly in women, was education level. Women with at least a primary school education had much lower rates of high-risk sexual behavior than those with no formal education, they found.
“One would expect that women who are educated have more agency and the means to know what behaviors are high-risk,” Bendavid said. “We found a pretty strong association.”
The researchers concluded that the “study contributes to the growing body of evidence that abstinence and faithfulness campaigns may not reduce high-risk sexual behaviors and supports the importance of investing in alternative evidence-based programs for HIV prevention in the developing world.”
The authors noted that PEPFAR representatives have been open to discussing these findings and the implications for funding decisions regarding HIV prevention programs.
Stanford medical student Anita Lowe was also a co-author of the study.
Americans spent $3 trillion on health care in 2014, or about $9,523 per person. That’s up 5.3 percent from the previous year. That increase isn’t expected to slow down; for about the next decade, the U.S. government expects spending to grow 5.8 percent on average each year.
As policymakers look for ways to cut down this spending, one idea gaining traction is to incentivize consumer-directed health plans (CDHP). These high-deductible, low-cost plans are already growing in popularity. About 20 percent of people who are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance are enrolled in some type of CDHP.
In theory, CDHPs would reduce health-care costs because consumers would choose less expensive health care when they pay for it themselves. But does that theory pan out in practice? M. Kate Bundorf, an associate professor of political economy, examines the benefits — and the trouble spots. Bundorf is also a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy.
How do consumer-directed health plans work?
A CDHP is one type of plan offered by an insurance company. The main idea behind CDHPs was, instead of putting decisions about cost and quality tradeoffs in the hands of the health plan, we’ll put them in the hands of the consumers. There are three features that are generally associated (with CDHPs): One is a relatively high deductible, the second is some type of a personal spending account, and the third is information tools for people to compare costs and quality when they’re choosing care.
People can make decisions that reflect their own preferences. Think about a person choosing between two different drugs to treat their condition. One drug is less expensive, but it has some side effects. Some people would be willing to pay the higher price for the drug without the side effects, and some people would prefer to spend less and be fine with the side effects. People might be very different in terms of the tradeoffs they’d like to make.
Read the full Q&A with the Stanford Graduate School of Buisness.
Bob Kocher
