Stanford Health Policy's Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya write in this Wall Street Journal editorial that current estimates about the COVID-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude.

"If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.

"Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate — 2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, 2 million to 4 million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases."

"The latter rate is misleading because of selection bias in testing. The degree of bias is uncertainbecause available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills 2 million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far."

Read the Editorial 

As the deaths and detected cases from the COVID-19 epidemic continue to rise globally, government planners and policymakers require projections of its future course and impacts. They also need to understand how potential interventions might “flatten the curve.”

“It’s important to understand these overall effects by geographic area, demographic group, and for special populations like health-care workers,” says Stanford Health Policy’s Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, who will be teaching a new class in the spring on infectious disease modeling with Stanford Medicine’s Jason Andrews. “Doing this requires mathematical models that incorporate the best available clinical, epidemiological, and policy data along with their associated uncertainties — the state-of-the-art of infectious disease modeling.”

Goldhaber-Fiebert and Andrews will debut the new course, Models for Understanding and Controlling Global Infectious Diseases (HUMBIO 154D for undergrads and HRP204 for graduate students) in the upcoming spring quarter. Stanford Provost Persis Drell announced last week that all spring courses at the university will now be taught online and pushed the start of the new quarter April 6.

Andrews is an infectious disease physician and assistant professor of medicine and Goldhaber-Fiebert, an associate professor of medicine, is a decision scientist.

The class will enable students to become critical consumers of studies using infectious disease modeling and to learn the building blocks for constructing infectious disease models themselves.

Despite the course being new and listed in the middle of winter quarter, they have seen enrollment rise from eight — prior to the rise of COVID-19 in the U.S. and its direct impacts on Stanford’s operations — to nearly 30 students as of March 22.

“Together Jason and I are leading one of several efforts on COVID-19 modeling here in Stanford,” said Goldhaber-Fiebert. “And we anticipate that the course will increase the number of Stanford students with the necessary skills to contribute to Stanford’s leadership in this area.”

Controversies over the lack of diagnostic testing for the COVID-19 virus have dominated U.S headlines for weeks. Technical challenges with the first test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) left the nation with minimal diagnostic capacity during the first few weeks of the epidemic, according to a new paper published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Michelle Mello, a professor of medicine at Stanford Health Policy and professor of law at Stanford Law School.

On February 29, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began allowing high-complexity labs across the country to use tests they developed in-house. On March 5, the Stanford Clinical Virology Lab deployed its own test for patients at Stanford Health Care and Stanford Children’s Health.

We asked Mello to answer some questions about the federal rollout of diagnostic testing.

You write that in the early stages, COVID-19 “spread beyond the nation’s ability to detect it.” Is there anything the U.S. government could or should have done weeks ago to get out ahead of the spread?

Adopting broader testing criteria and allowing use of a wider range of tests would have been helpful in identifying the first U.S. cases and containing the spread. Manufacturing problems like the one that arose with CDC’s test are always a risk, but the fact that CDC put all its eggs in that one basket made the manufacturing snafu highly consequential.

Also, the public messaging from Washington about the seriousness of the problem has been neither consistent nor accurate, and I worry it may have led Americans to take fewer steps to prevent community transmission than we should have. Containment was not “pretty close to airtight.” A vaccine was never going to be ready in “three to four months,” as the Trump administration claimed. The case fatality rate is not “way under 1 percent.” Part of the problem here is that as the stock market continues to plunge, the president and the task force he appointed appear to be more concerned about calming investors than stopping the virus.

We seem to be between a rock and a hard place: You write that remedying gaps in testing is imperative, yet “more testing is not always better.” How do we determine the happy middle ground?

First, the testing criteria have to be calibrated to our actual testing capacity. You can’t announce that any American who wants a coronavirus test can get one and then, within hours, announce that there aren’t enough test kits to make that possible. High priorities for testing include patients with serious, unexplained respiratory illness and contacts of known cases. From there, testing can be expanded, beginning with other high-risk groups, as capacity permits.

Second, we should consider unintended side effects of mass testing. The problem with this virus is that it doesn’t have signature symptoms. It looks like the common cold or the flu. If everyone with a cough or fever, or who has been around someone with a cough or fever, shows up in their doctor’s office demanding a test, it will quickly overwhelm care facilities that should be focusing on patients with a higher likelihood of being infected or and those who are infected and are seriously ill. It may also work against the social distancing measures that public health officials are trying to encourage, because crowded waiting rooms may spread the virus.

The CDC announced Monday it now has the testing capacity in 78 state and local public health labs across 50 states to test for the virus. There are now 75,000 lab kits cumulatively to test for COVID-19 with more coming on board by mid-March. But is there anything we could have done to roll this out earlier?

The alternative would have been to allow laboratories to deploy their own tests from the beginning, using the primers and protocols made publicly available by the World Health Organization. That’s what other countries have done. RT-PCR is a mature technology and high-complexity labs around the country are well-qualified to conduct this type of testing.

There is a public health argument for not going that route: perhaps those labs wouldn’t have done as good a job as CDC’s own lab and the state labs that it handpicked early in the outbreak. What if there were erroneous test results? We could miss cases, or we could put people into isolation, with huge social consequences, based on false-positive results. There is also a worry that some labs aren’t consistent about reporting positive test results to CDC, and underreporting could compromise disease surveillance efforts.

The counterargument is that high-complexity labs have that certification for a reason—they’re good at what they do. And of course, surveillance is also compromised when you miss cases because you don’t test.

You write in your paper that testing for COVID-19 “highlights a controversial area of public policy—the regulation of laboratory-developed tests—in which there has long been tension between the goals of access and quality.” Who should be in charge of regulating these tests?

Laboratory-developed tests are largely unregulated outside of emergencies. The FDA proposed draft guidance in 2014 that, if implemented, would have required labs to make certain showings to FDA about tests they developed in-house, with the particular evidence calibrated to the risks involved in having a wrong test result. Contrary to President Trump’s claim that an Obama-era policy constrained coronavirus testing, the guidance did not relate to emergency situations. During declared emergencies, another statute and set of regulations apply, and the FDA has broad discretion to allow or disallow use of novel diagnostics and therapies as emergency countermeasures.

As a general matter, it makes good sense to require labs to submit evidence that their in-house tests work. It’s odd that laboratory-developed tests are carved out of requirements that apply to other kinds of medical devices. It’s also sensible that our legal framework allows FDA’s regular rules to be relaxed during emergencies so we can tailor our response to the difficult and changing circumstances.

You write that diagnostic testing is critical to an effective response to the novel coronavirus. What sort of policies and guidelines should be put into place to prevent such a sluggish rollout during an emerging epidemic the next time one comes around?

The legal framework for an effective emergency response is in place. Because giving agency heads the discretion to act as potentially unforeseeable circumstances require is a linchpin of this legal framework, it only works if leaders make smart choices. Every emergency is different, and there is a danger of Monday-morning quarterbacking. But we should learn from every misstep we make, and I think the lesson here is to make better use of already developed networks of highly qualified labs to make sure we have adequate testing capacity to isolate cases and trace their contacts very early in an outbreak.

What are some innovative approaches we could be taking to speed up testing for those who really need it?

The South Koreans have set up drive-through testing stations in parking lots to avoid concentrating crowds of people indoors. Of course, that requires that you have plenty of test kits, which we don’t yet – but we should also be thinking about creative ways to address the epidemic. For example, how could video calls be used to monitor the health of people confined at home after being exposed to the virus? How can social media be used to connect neighbors to help one another when some are isolated at home? Hopefully we can find new ways for technology to bring us together when pathogens drive us apart.

This is the first installment in a series leading up to the publication of Fateful Decisions.

China has tremendous resources, both human and financial, but it may now be facing a perfect storm of challenges. Its future is neither inevitable nor immutable, and its further evolution will be highly contingent on the content and efficacy of complex policy choices.

Image

One of these challenges — how China must soon achieve economic growth as it grapples with the realities of a rapidly aging population and a shrinking workforce — is the subject of a chapter authored by Karen Eggleston, the deputy director of APARC and director of the Center’s Asia Health Policy Program. In the following interview, Eggleston shares perspectives from her chapter, “Demographic Challenges.”

[To get more stories like this delivered to your inbox, sign up for our newsletters]

Q: What are some of the fateful decisions China is facing regarding the responsibilities of caring for a large, aging population?

A: China has achieved impressive improvements in health and longevity. It has implemented universal health coverage and is experimenting with financial support for long-term care for older adults. Yet significant gaps between the most- and least-privileged Chinese citizens persist, and in some cases are growing. As I have written elsewhere, it is not surprising that there are wide disparities in health and healthcare between different population subgroups in a country as populous, expansive, and diverse as China. How effectively and efficiently China meets these and other health- and aging-related issues will have a major impact on its ability to manage other social and economic challenges.

In the chapter I contributed to the volume Fateful Decisions, I note that China’s current population and demographic trends — including relatively rapid aging — reflect the success of earlier investments in infectious disease control, public health measures, and other contributors to mortality reduction. The lingering effects of family planning policies, historic preferences for sons, and rapid economic development are also major considerations. Together, these factors have produced a shrinking working-age population, a growing number of elderly, a gender imbalance, and hurdles for inclusive urbanization. An urgent question for China’s future is to what extent policies will ameliorate disparities in health, healthcare use, and the burden of medical spending.

The unfolding COVID-2019 outbreak is a powerful illustration of just how fateful decisions about health systems can be. Compared to the SARS outbreak almost two decades ago, China has been better prepared for this situation. SARS raised health system reform to the top of the political agenda and, many argue, played a direct role in China’s achieving universal health coverage and vastly strengthening the public health system.

But as China has become a middle-income global economic powerhouse in the years since SARS and the ensuing wave of health policy reforms, the expectations of its citizens about their health system have also risen. Has the health system, including public health and medical care, been strengthened to the same degree as other parts of the economy and public services? The impact of and lasting response to COVID-2019 may prove a litmus test.

Q: Why do these decisions about health carry such importance for China’s future development?

Through the last four decades, China has benefitted from a demographic dividend caused by the large bulge in the working-age population. But to achieve future economic growth and productivity, investments in human capital — particularly in health and education —need to be made. This higher productivity will, in turn, be the means by which a smaller workforce can support China’s large and growing cohort of retirees.

As we’ve already seen, health expenditures have increased rapidly as China has developed its system of universal health coverage. Double-digit health spending growth surpassed the rate of economic growth, and as a result, health spending absorbs an increasingly larger share of the total economy. China needs to make sure additional spending on health and elderly care is efficient and effective, while also addressing the nonmedical determinants of health and promoting healthy aging. The health system needs to be reengineered to emphasize prevention, provide coordinated health care for people with multiple chronic diseases, assure equitable access to rapidly changing medical technologies, and ensure long-term care for frail elderly, all without unsustainable increases in opportunity costs for China’s future generations.

Q: What is the Chinese government doing to improve healthcare quality and delivery, and what more could it do to affect meaningful change in its systems?

China’s current policies seek to balance individual responsibility, community support, and taxpayer redistribution through safety-net coverage funded by central and local governments. Like many countries, China would benefit from improved coordination across multiple agencies and structure incentives to avoid or mitigate unintended consequences that undermine the goals of its health system. Recent governance reforms, such as the creation of the National Healthcare Security Administration, aim to address these challenges.

China’s achievements and remaining challenges can be illustrated with the Healthcare Access and Quality Index (HAQ), which measures premature mortality from causes that should not occur if the individual had access to high-quality healthcare: among 195 countries and territories, China achieved the highest absolute increase in the HAQ Index from 2000 to 2016. However, the 43-point regional disparity in HAQ within China is the equivalent of the difference between Iceland (the highest HAQ in the world) and North Korea.

Q: The subject of your chapter, China’s demographic challenges, is one of the issues you investigate in your upcoming book, Healthy Aging in Asia. As you show in this volume, challenges at the intersection of aging, economics, demographic transition, and healthcare policy are not unique to China. How are other countries in Asia responding to them and what lessons could benefit China?

 As I note in the introduction of Healthy Aging in Asia, the demographic transition from high to low fertility and mortality has been more rapid in much of Asia than in Europe and North America. That means social institutions, such as retirement, living arrangements, and intergenerational support, have to adapt quickly. For example, extending work-lives (as is happening in Japan) will be necessary but feasible only if the added years are healthy ones and equitable only if the least advantaged also benefit from healthy aging. The blessings of longevity dim when clouded by pain, disability, and loss of dignity.

 Investment strategies in insurance and managing chronic conditions are also important considerations. Japan and Korea have adopted insurance systems for financing long-term care for frail elderly, while places like Hong Kong have good empirical research on chronic condition management.

 No country or system has a “magic pill” to address these challenges, but the empirical evidence and rich policy experience documented in Healthy Aging from health systems as diverse as those in the cities of Singapore and Hong Kong to large economies such as Japan, India, and China can certainly be instructive.

More evidence-based research is needed before the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force can recommend that clinicians screen their older patients for cognitive impairment such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cognitive impairment is a growing public health dilemma that affects millions of Americans as they age. The Global Burden of Disease study shows that Alzheimer’s rose from the 12th most burdensome disease or injury in the United States in 1990 to the 6th in 2016.

Medical experts who were commissioned to conduct an evidence report for the Task Force projected that the burden of Alzheimer’s disease is expected to grow to 13.8 million U.S. residents by 2050 — or nearly 3.3% of the projected U.S. population by that year.

Their findings, the Task Force recommendation statement and several accompanying editorials were all published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The symptoms of cognitive impairment can range from problems with memory and language, to learning new things or making decisions that affect everyday life. 

“Early identification of cognitive impairment through screening would ideally allow patients and their families to receive care at an earlier stage in the disease process, potentially facilitating discussions regarding health, financial, and legal decision-making while the patient still retains decision-making capacity,” the authors of the Task Force evidence report wrote.

But after reviewing some 287 studies including more than 285,000 older adults, the Task Force determined there wasn’t sufficient evidence about the benefits or harms of screening adults 65 and older who do not have signs or symptoms. The Task Force also did not find adequate evidence that screening for cognitive impairment improves decision-making or planning by patients, caregivers or doctors.

At the same time, there is little evidence on potential harms of screening, such as depression, anxiety or lower quality of life.

“Given the burden of dementia and the intense public interest in preventing cognitive impairment, the lack of progress is disheartening,” Carol Brayne, MD, with the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge in the UK, wrote in an accompanying JAMA editorial to the Task Force evidence report.

But, she added, “Political considerations and pressure from commercial interests and patient advocacy groups notwithstanding, public policies for dementia screening should be supported by evidence.”

The Task Force — an independent panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine — encourages clinicians to remain alert for early signs of symptoms of cognitive impairment, while calling for more research on the detection of dementia.

“Research is especially needed on whether screening and early detection of cognitive impairment helps patients, caregivers, and doctors make decisions about health care or plan for the future,” said Douglas K. Owens, chair of the Task Force and the director of Stanford Health Policy.  “We share the frustration of clinicians who want to offer something that could help patients prevent cognitive impairment. We hope that additional research will enable us to know whether that’s possible.”

The most commonly used screening tests include the Mini-Mental State Examination as well as the clock-drawing test. Screening tests involve asking patients to perform a series of tasks that asses one or more aspects of cognitive functions. The USPSTF concluded that more research is needed to know whether such screening tests can lead to interventions that help prevent or improve cognitive impairment. 

Elderly patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure have a poor prognosis and high risk of death and hospital readmission. So, their post-discharge care can strongly influence their outcomes.

Yet despite data showing that transitional care interventions, such as home visits by nurses, can reduce death rates and hospital readmission by more than 30%, many health systems have not implemented such programs. Health policy experts say this is due in part to cost concerns and doubts about the effectiveness of these delivery services.

 Now, a team of Stanford Medicine and Veterans Affairs researchers has sought to assess whether transitional care interventions provide good value and better outcomes, as there are 5 million people living with congestive heart failure in the United States and 500,000 new cases diagnosed each year. CHF is the stage of chronic heart disease in which fluids build up around the heart, causing it to pump inefficiently.

The researchers updated a 2017 study on the impact of transitional care intervention with four years of additional data. They then used it to compare standard post-discharge management with three post-discharge regimes for patients 75 or older that they found to be most effective: disease management clinics, nurse home visits and nurse case management.

All three transitional care interventions delivered appreciable health benefits to the patient population, said Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine and core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy.

The findings were published in the Annals of International Medicine. Goldhaber-Fiebert is the senior author. The lead authors are Manuel R. Blum, MD, MS in Epidemiology & Clinical Research at Stanford in 2019 and now at the Department of General Internal Medicine at the University Hospital of Bern; Henning Øien, PhD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo; and Harris L. Carmichael, MD, a Stanford/Intermountain Fellow in Population Health, Delivery Science, and Primary Care

“Transitional care interventions for older individuals with congestive heart failure — particularly nurse home visits — offer a high-value care alternative that could improve the health and longevity of millions of Americans,” he said.

The researchers said these transitional care services should become the standard of care for post-discharge management of patients with heart failure.

Heart failure causes 1 in 8 deaths nationwide

The prevalence of heart failure is estimated to be 26 million people worldwide and growing. In the United states, heart 5.7 million adults have been diagnosed with HF, with an estimated annual direct cost of $39.2 billion to $60 billion. Total heart failure costs in the United States are expected to exceed $70 billion by 2030, the authors wrote. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heart disease costs the United States about $219 billion each year from health-care services, medicines and lost productivity.

Of the 15 million Americans in their mid-70s to 80s today, about 1 million suffer heart failure.

“So population gains from more effective post-discharge care would be hundreds of thousands of life years,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said. “Likewise, tens of thousands of costly rehospitalizations could be prevented each year if these interventions were delivered successfully.”

Heart failure primarily affects older people and is the second-most common inpatient diagnosis billed to Medicare. Yet the authors cite a recent study of 18 million Medicaid charges which found that only 7% of eligible patients at risk of rehospitalization received transitional services.

The standard post-hospital care for those patients includes sending them home with some advice and scheduling follow-up visits for them with cardiologists within 14 days of discharge. The researchers found that patients who received this standard post-hospitalization care with an average age of 75 had an average life expectancy of 2.9 years and 2.9 hospitalizations during their remaining lifetime. In comparison, nurse home visits decreased the number of hospitalizations by 10 readmissions per 100 patients and increased life expectancy by approximately four months, the study found.

“If these interventions were successfully implemented at scale, they could provide important substantial benefits with very good value,” said co-author Douglas Owens, MD, the Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor and professor of medicine at Stanford.

Reduced hospitalizations for congestive heart failure, according to the research, produces substantial cost savings that partially offset the costs of delivering the interventions. Though nurse home visits increase lifetime health care costs by $4,622, the substantial health benefits that they deliver justify their costs: $19,570 quality adjusted life years gained, which is considered highly cost-effective.

Hospital and insurance administrators take note

“Our results have important implications for decision-makers in hospital administration as well as in insurance and policy settings,” the authors wrote. They concluded:

• Transitional care services should become the standard of care for post-discharge management of patients with heart failure;
• The increasing reimbursement restrictions and regulations affecting HF hospital readmissions, through such programs as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, makes this research particularly informative to decision-makers;
• Hospital administrators could use the research to determine which transitional services are most cost-effective for its rural population, overall patient base and hospital system.

The other Stanford researcher on the study was Paul Heidenreich, MD, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine and, by courtesy, professor of health research and policy at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Updated January 24
Millions of residents in China are under lockdown measures as the number of reported deaths from the coronavirus outbreak rises to 26. In the United States, dozens of people are being monitored for the virus. The World Health Organization on January 23 said at a press conference the outbreak did not yet constitute a global public health emergency.

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus that began in December 2019 in Wuhan, China “is evolving and complex,” said the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) after its emergency committee convened on Wednesday, January 22, and decided that more information was needed before the WHO declares whether or not the outbreak is a public health emergency of international concern. The new virus, known as 2019-nCoV, causes respiratory illness and continues to spread across China. Chinese health authorities, reports the Washington Post, announced that at least 17 people have now died as a result of infection and confirmed cases have been reported in Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Macao, with one travel-related case detected in the United States, in the State of Washington. The WHO decision was made as the city of Wuhan shut down all air and train traffic to try to contain the spread of the virus.

With concern over and coverage of the situation rapidly developing, Karen Eggleston, APARC Deputy Director and the Asia Health Policy Program Director at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, offered her insights on the outbreak and its impact on both Asian and international healthcare systems.

Q: Why has this outbreak raised so much concern in China and internationally, and how worried should people be about it?

Infectious disease outbreaks can challenge any health system. Events such as SARS, Ebola, and MERS outbreaks, and even the devastating flu pandemic a century ago, remind us of the frightening power that infectious diseases with high-case fatality can have. The global burden of mortality and morbidity is mostly from non-communicable chronic diseases, but no country or society is immune to old, newly emerging, and re-emerging infectious diseases. And although health systems are generally stronger now and have more technologies to trace and contain outbreaks, there are also deep and complicated challenges that make swift, coordinated disease response difficult even in the modern era.

Any government leadership or healthcare responders who have tried to manage an outbreak situation before are hyper-aware of the need to prepare for and manage future incidents, but we are living in a moment of very complicated social dynamics surrounding public health and healthcare. Distrust in drug companies and government agencies, controversies over vaccines, and increasing skepticism in science, even if only from vocal minorities, all make it more difficult to manage a cohesive international response to an outbreak situation and protect vulnerable people.

Q: As you’ve mentioned, many people looking at this situation with the memory of outbreaks such as SARS or H1N1 in mind. How is the Chinese government addressing this crisis and how does its reaction compare with China’s history of emergency health responses?

China’s health system is much more prepared now, compared to the SARS crisis 17 years ago. More training and investment in primary health care, disease surveillance and technology systems for tracking and monitoring outbreaks, and the achievement of universal health coverage with improving catastrophic coverage even for the rural population, all suggest a health system that is much better prepared to handle a situation like this. Top-level leadership in China had already begun to publicly address the situation within days of the outbreak to assure the public that strict prevention measures will be taken and to urge local officials to take responsibility and share full information. Until more information is gained and more is understood about the nature of this virus, it’s been categorized as a “Grade B infectious disease” but will be managed as if it is a "Grade A infectious disease," which requires the strictest prevention and control measures, including mandatory quarantine of patients and medical observation for those who have had close contact with patients, according to the commission. China currently only classifies two other diseases as Grade A infection diseases—bubonic plague and cholera—and so that tells you something about how seriously this is being treated by those in leadership positions.

Q: And what about the response from the international health communities?

As with any major healthcare crisis, health systems around the globe must also respond with alacrity and integrity, including effective surveillance, monitoring, and infection control. Individuals also play a crucial role in supporting the instructions and recommendations made by established healthcare professionals. For example, the individual with the confirmed case in Washington State proactively told medical personnel about his recent visit to the Wuhan area. His medical providers then exercised appropriate levels of caution, given the unknown nature of the virus, and isolated him while his symptoms developed. He is currently combatting an infection similar in severity to that of mild pneumonia, and so far no other cases have been reported in the United States, though some may arise in the coming days and weeks.

There is always a fine balance between safeguarding public health while still respecting individual rights, civil liberties, and undertaking a prudent, scientific response. The aim is to remain clear and transparent in communications and actions without reverting to disproportionate or overly aggressive responses which lead to panic, distortion, and misinformation about the situation. Some countries, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, may choose to seal their international borders until more is understood about the nature of this virus, but most nations will use tried-and-tested methods of monitoring travelers and alerting population health systems so that information about cases is widely available to health authorities and medical researchers trying to understand the cause and develop a potential cure.

Q: As this situation continues to develop, and with inevitable future disease outbreaks around the globe, what would you hope people keep in mind about the role we all play in healthcare crises and in public health?

One issue this outbreak reminds us of in a visceral and intimate way is how closely people are linked together across the world. Globalization and air travel almost instantaneously link continents, countries, and regions. The timing of this outbreak is particularly fraught, because it’s the beginning of the Lunar New Year, when there is a vast migration of people both within China, throughout greater Asia, and across the globe as massive populations go home to celebrate the holidays with family. The potential for a contagious disease to spread easily through crowds and across borders in circumstances like this is very high, and highlights the need for the international communities to share information, scientific expertise, and understanding.

We need to remember that this is not just a problem in a remote part of the world that has no impact on those of us who live in relative comfort in high-income countries. Rather, this is something that could easily impact anyone. Perhaps this latest outbreak and response will showcase how vital additional, ongoing investments in both domestic and international healthcare systems, technologies, and people are.

When it comes to rooting out wasteful spending in federal entitlement programs, attention has long focused on preventing beneficiaries from gaming the system.

A new Stanford study identifies a fresh cause for concern: the for-profit companies that the U.S. government increasingly tasks with providing benefits to Americans who are often poor, elderly or both.

In a new working paper, Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of medicine, finds that outsourcing public assistance services to third parties can lead to unanticipated effects on prices as well as on which beneficiaries gain the most from public dollars.

That’s because companies are in the business of making money. And when they know which of their consumers are likely to get certain levels of public support, they will try to use this information to maximize their profits, according to the research published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Polyakova shows that when companies act in their self-interest, unforeseen inequities and inefficiencies can arise that may hurt some consumers while helping others. At a time when governments in the United States and around the world are increasingly turning to the private sector to provide public benefits — namely in health care and in education — Polyakova says policymakers need to better understand how these intermediaries are affecting welfare programs.

“Policymakers have to be more careful about introducing intermediaries into public services,” says Polyakova, who is a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), and teaches at the Stanford School of Medicine. She is also a core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy. “They may want to revisit how they think about outsourcing when research is showing that there are unintended consequences that may be positive or negative.”

Health Insurance Pricing under the Microscope

Intermediaries are central to a number of public services where the U.S. government provides subsidies to consumers, often based on income, age or employment status. Prominent examples include privately-managed Medicare Advantage Plans, drug benefits under Medicare Plan D, and charter schools in secondary education.

According to Polyakova, most research into wasteful spending within government subsidies has focused on consumers and how they try to trick the system by, for example, hiding income to qualify for a tax credit or cash assistance. Governments, though imperfect, have long been seen as benign players.

The increasing involvement of for-profit companies, she says, shows there’s a need to closely examine what’s happening on the supply side of public welfare.

To do that, Polyakova found an ideal setting: the federal health insurance marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Most consumers who shop for coverage through www.healthcare.gov receive a subsidy in the form of a tax credit that covers all or part of their insurance premium. The amount of their tax credit is tied to their household income.

The dollars at stake are significant. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2019 the federal government will pay $560 billion in subsidies for privately-provided health insurance, including the spending on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces as well as other similarly designed programs. That figure is expected to hit $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

The Neighborhood Effect

Polyakova and her co-author — Stephen Ryan of Washington University’s Olin Business School — analyzed data from 2017 covering more than 9 million enrollees across some 2,570 counties around the country. They find that the presence of an intermediary significantly impacts insurance prices and key measures economists use to calculate the effects of a policy beyond a given benefit’s face value.

Specifically, they show that health insurance companies will have an incentive to raise premiums in markets where more consumers receive the higher tax credit because their incomes are low and the government is required to subsidize them.

On the flip side, insurers will charge lower prices in places where such subsidized consumers are less willing to buy coverage if they think it costs too much.

To illustrate the unintended consequences of the insurers’ actions, the researchers point out that, in the first instance where prices increase, consumers with incomes that are slightly higher than other community members will end up paying more for the same coverage. Under the second scenario, consumers who don’t qualify for the tax credit because their incomes are too high benefit from the lower premiums aimed at nearby residents.

“The price you pay for insurance will depend on who your neighbors are,” says Polyakova. “If you live near people who are poorer than you, you will be affected differently than if you live near people who are richer than you.”

Change the subsidy, change the calculation

Like with financial aid, tax credits for insurance coverage are calculated based on consumer income. But there is another type of subsidy that policymakers could use — flat vouchers, in which all members of a market receive the same benefit regardless of income, age or some other characteristic. For their research, Polyakova and Ryan also analyze how flat vouchers that only vary by age, but not by income, would hypothetically alter private health insurance prices in the federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Here, too, the scholars find different impacts on different types of consumers whether the subsidy is based on income or delivered as a flat voucher.

The analyses, says Polyakova, drive home the point that policymakers need to understand that there are trade-offs to relying on for-profit companies to provide government services and that the type of subsidy offered can alter how they calculate prices in disparate ways.

“There’s nothing wrong with companies trying to maximize their profits,” says Polyakova. “But sophisticated policymakers need to understand what happens when private markets get involved.”

I always find it hard to believe so many people are living in poverty: some 39.7 million Americans, or 12.3% of the population. It’s such a wealthy country, yet so many are poor.

In a twist that could be interpreted as good news — it doesn’t seem fair to say there is anything positive about living in poverty — I recently learned that older, low-income Americans tend to be healthier if they live in more affluent areas of the country.

Not only are they healthier, but their physical well-being is better across the board with a lower prevalence of dozens of chronic conditions, particularly if they live in rural communities. This, despite their income having less purchasing power in those better-resourced neighborhoods.

This was the key finding in new research published by Stanford Health Policy’s Maria Polyakova in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

While recent studies have reported that low-income adults living in more affluent areas of the United States have longer life expectancies, less has been known about the relationship between the affluence of a geographic area and morbidity of the low-income population.

“I was interested in figuring out whether the same relationship holds for morbidity: Are poorer people less sick in richer areas?” Polyakova told me. “And if so, are there any specific conditions that drive these differences that could be the target for policy-making?”

So Polyakova, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and her co-author, Lynn M. Hua at the University of Pennsylvania, set out to evaluate the association between chronic conditions among low-income, older adults and the economic affluence of a local area. 

They focused on nearly 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 aged 66 to 100 years old who received low-income support under Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program for Medicare enrollees. They investigated the prevalence of 48 chronic conditions among these patients, including common chronic conditions such as hypertension, depression, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. They found the presence of all conditions is highly correlated: places, where the poor tend to have a high prevalence of one disease, are likely to have a high prevalence of all 48 conditions.

“While we cannot ascertain a causal relationship, our results clearly point towards the importance of further understanding why the socioeconomic environment of low-income, older adults is so tightly linked to such a broad measure of health,” the researchers wrote. 

The results, they said, were broadly consistent with the extensive literature on the social determinants of health. But their work takes that literature even further.

“Our study extends this research by providing measures of the prevalence of chronic conditions among low-income, older adults for a large national sample of the U.S. population,” Polyakova said. 

The researchers used clinical, rather than self-reported measures of diagnoses and reported this group’s variation in morbidity across local areas of the country, rather than nationally. 

“Our results raise the bar for researchers who are trying to find out what factors drive health disparities in the U.S.; these factors would have to be able to explain the differences in nearly 50 condition,” Polyakova said.

The study supported by the National Institute on Aging came to three key conclusions:

1. The health of low-income, older adults in the United States varies substantially across local geographic regions, and this variation cannot be attributed to one specific disease or a narrow set of conditions. 
2. Consistent with their original hypothesis, they found that more affluent local areas of the country have a lower prevalence of chronic conditions in the low-income, older adult population.
3. The researchers found that low-income, older adults have better health in rural areas of the country.

I wondered why these poor, older adults do particularly well in rural communities, as those regions often lack easy access to high-quality health care and state-of-the-art hospitals.

“We don’t know the exact answer, but there is a general sense that differences in the social fabric and lifestyle in rural areas — could contribute to this pattern,” Polyakova told me. “It appears that better health in these areas persists, despite challenges of accessing formal care.”

A task force of national health experts has released a draft recommendation to screen all adults 18 to 79 years for the hepatitis C virus (HCV), noting the opioid epidemic has fueled what has become the most common chronic bloodborne pathogen in the United States.

Cases of acute HCV have increased 3.5-fold over the last decade, particularly among young, white, injection drug users who live in rural areas. Women aged 15 to 44 have also been hit hard by the virus that is spread through contaminated blood.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which makes recommendations followed by primary care clinicians nationwide, has until now recommended that people who are at high risk be tested for hepatitis C, as well as “baby boomers” born between 1945 and 1965.

“Unfortunately, HCV now affects a broader age range than previously with three times as many new infections per year,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, chair of the independent, voluntary panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine.

The Task Force now recommends that clinicians encourage all their adult patients, even those with no symptoms or known liver disease, get a blood test for the virus. Pregnant women should also be screened; from 2009 to 2014, the prevalence of HCV infection among women giving birth has nearly doubled.

“The explosive growth in HCV has been fueled by the opioid epidemic, with the spread of HCV into younger populations,” said Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. “HCV now kills more Americans than all other reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV.”

An estimated 4.1 million people in the United States are carrying HCV antibodies; about 2.4 million are living with the virus, according to the Task Force. The HCV infection becomes chronic in 75% to 85% of cases and some of those people develop symptoms such as chronic fatigue and depression, and liver diseases that can range from cirrhosis to liver cancer.

Approximately one-third of people ages 18 to 30 who inject drugs are infected with the virus; 70% to 90% of older injection-drug users are infected.

There currently is no vaccine for hepatitis C although research in the development of a vaccine is underway. But there are effective oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications that can clear the virus from the body, particularly if caught early.

“The good news is that treatment for HCV is far better, and far better tolerated than in the past, offering a cure to most people,” Owens said. “Early identification of HCV is important to prevent long-term complications of HCV including liver failure, liver cancer, and death.”

The Task Force said in a release that there are several key research gaps that could inform the benefit of screening for HCV infection:

1. ·     Research is needed on the yield of repeat vs. one-time screening for HCV.
2. ·     Research is needed to identify labor management practices and treatment of HCV infection prior to pregnancy to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission.
3. ·     Trials and cohort studies that measure effects on quality of life, function, and extrahepatic effects of HCV infection (such as renal function, cardiovascular effects or diabetes) would be helpful for evaluating the impact of DAA regimens on short-term health outcomes.
4. ·     Additional studies are needed to examine the epidemiology of HCV infection and the effectiveness of DAA regimens in adolescents.