The United States is the only country in the 35-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that offers no paid leave to new mothers. The U.S. also has relatively poor infant health ratings, particularly for preterm births and infant mortality.

So why has the federal government been so reluctant to join other industrialized nations in paying new mothers to stay at home so they can nurture and nourish these new citizens?

“There’s opposition from business interests arguing that any type of mandate on employers imposes too large costs, especially for small businesses,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Maya Rossin-Slater. “There’s not much empirical evidence supporting this argument, but I think the strong political opposition from business supporters may be a central reason for a lack of action on the federal level.”

In a policy brief published March 28 in Health Affairs, Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health research and policy, lays out the evidence that suggests the introduction of paid family leave (PFL) for up to one year in duration may yield significant child and maternal health benefits, both in the short and long term. Her co-author on the brief is Lindsey Uniat, a predoctoral research fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

“Existing research suggests that when leave is paid, take-up rates are higher among low-income and disadvantaged families than when it is unpaid, which enables more families to benefit,” they wrote.

Some of the short- and long-term health benefits include decreased incidence of low birthweight and preterm births, increased breast-feeding, reduced rates of hospitalizations among infants and improved maternal health.

Family and Medical Leave Act

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave with continued health insurance coverage to attend to a newborn or adopted child, a family member, or an employee’s own serious health condition. There are strict eligibility requirements for the FMLA, such as needing to have worked at least 1,250 hours for an employer with 50 or more employees during the 12 months before the start of the leave.

The most recent data, according to the authors, indicate that only about 60 percent of private-sector workers are eligible for FMLA, and 46 percent of those eligible report not being able to afford taking unpaid time off work.

Six states and the District of Columbia have passed paid family leave policies, and the issue has been receiving attention at both state and federal levels in recent years. California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, as well as Puerto Rico, have State Disability Insurance (SDI), which provides partial wage-replaced leave for workers with temporary disabilities and for mothers preparing for and recovering from childbirth. These policies offer up to six weeks of leave postpartum for vaginal deliveries and eight weeks for C-section deliveries.

“The majority of existing research on the health effects of PFL focuses on children’s outcomes,” the authors write. Earlier work on the impacts of unpaid leave provided through the FMLA shows that it led to small increases in birthweight and large reductions in infant mortality rates.

However, these health benefits were apparent only for children of relatively advantaged mothers, the authors wrote, which is consistent with prior evidence that such mothers were most likely to be eligible for, and able to afford to use, unpaid leave.

“In contrast, mothers and children from less advantaged backgrounds particularly benefit from access to paid leave,” they said, noting that one study showed that the introduction of paid maternity leave through the SDI system in five states led to a reduction in the share of low birthweight and preterm births, especially for unmarried and black mothers.

Rossin-Slater and Uniat believe paid family leave may affect population health through multiple channels:

• Children of parents who take leave may receive more parental care, breast-feeding and immunizations if parents are able to stay home longer after birth;
• Child health may improve from the extra resources that parents get form PFL benefits, such as more nutritious food;
• Infant and long-term health outcomes may improve if PFL access lowers maternal stress during pregnancy, perhaps due to increased financial and job security;
• Taking time off from work without the financial strain may improve the parental bond with the infant — leading to long-term health benefits for the child.

The Labor Market

Finally, existing research indicates that paid family leave may benefit the labor market by leading to fewer high-school dropouts, thus an increase in children’s future wages.

“Several policy takeaways are evidence from the research to date,” the authors wrote. “Paid leave, in contrast to unpaid leave, increases leave usage and duration, especially among disadvantaged parents who are least able to afford unpaid time off.”

More research is needed, they said, to understand how paid family leave legislation could impact employers.

“We know little about how employers deal with work interruptions due to employees’ taking leave or whether employers respond to PFL mandates by changing their own benefits packages, hiring practices, or other aspects of jobs,” they said.

Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens was named chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Tasks Force, an independent panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that makes health-care recommendations to Congress and the American public.

Owens, the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr. Professor at Stanford University and a general internist at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, is also a professor of medicine, health research and policy, and management science and engineering at Stanford. He is the director of the Center for Health Policy in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, where he is also a senior fellow, and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research in the Department of Medicine.

“The goal of the Task Force is to help people live longer and healthier lives,” said Owens. “We aim to bring the best science about prevention to our guideline recommendations on more than 70 preventive services, including screening, behavioral counseling and preventive medications."

Owens noted that the Task Force guidelines — unbiased, independent assessments of the benefits and harms of preventive services — impact virtually every primary care patient in the country. From statins, mammograms and cervical cancer screening, to depression, HIV screening or cardiovascular disease, the 16 volunteer members of the Task Force weigh all the medical evidence to determine the safest course of action from adolescence to old age.

A guideline this January about perinatal depression, for example, was highlighted in this New York Times article. Depression hits one-in-seven women during and after giving birth, prompting the Task Force to recommend that clinicians refer at-risk women to counseling, specifically cognitive behavioral or interpersonal therapy.

“I am delighted to congratulate Dr. Owens on his appointment as chair of the Task Force,” said Susan J. Curry, a distinguished professor in the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa. “Over the years, he has brought invaluable expertise in evidence synthesis, clinical decision-making and modeling — all critical to the methods we use to develop evidence-based recommendations.”

Some other recent recommendations by the Task Force include that men aged 55 to 69 talk to their doctors about prostate cancer screenings; patients at high risk of HIVshould take a daily preventive drug; and that adults aged 50 to 75 be screened for colon cancer. 

Each year, the Task Force makes a report to Congressthat identifies critical evidence gaps in research related to clinical prevention services. It recommends priority areas that deserve further explanations, all of which are made public on the Task Force website for public comment.

Something as simple as, "Are you taking your medications?" could conceivably prolong a life.

The study, detailed in a new working paper released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, was co-authored by Petra Persson, an assistant professor of economics; Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of health economics at Stanford School of Medicine and core faculty at Stanford Health Policy; and Yiqun Chen, a doctoral student in health economics at Stanford School of Medicine. Persson and Polyakova are both faculty fellows at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

Their study tackles the issue of health inequality and specifically examines the effects of having access to informal health expertise by having a doctor or nurse in the family. It finds that those with relatives in the health profession are 10 percent more likely to live beyond age 80. They are also significantly less likely to have chronic lifestyle-related conditions, such as heart attacks, heart failure and diabetes.

Younger relatives within the extended family also see gains: They are more likely to have been vaccinated, and they have fewer hospital admissions and a lower prevalence of drug or alcohol addiction.

In addition, the closer the relatives are to their familial medical source – either geographically or within the family tree – the more pronounced the impact of the health benefits, according to the findings.

The researchers used data from Sweden, where lotteries were used in the early 2000s to break ties among equally qualified applicants for admission into medical schools. The researchers then compared the health of the family members of lottery winners against lottery losers – a setup similar to a randomized control trial.

The strong findings of health benefits funneled from a familial sphere of medical knowledge suggest it would be worth ramping up access to health expertise in our health care system, the researchers say.

A doctor, for instance, could prescribe statins – a type of drug known to lower the risk of heart attacks – but whether the patient continues taking it from day to day is a decision made at home.

“Our work shows that there is a lot of value in trying to improve people’s decisions about their investment in their own health,” Persson says.

“If the government and health care system, including public and private insurers, could mimic what goes on inside families, then we could reduce health inequality by as much as 18 percent,” she says, referring to a main finding of the study.

Intra-family transmissions of health-related expertise might encompass frequent nagging to adhere to prescribed medications, get vaccinations or refrain from smoking during pregnancy, and “these behavioral changes are – from a society’s perspective – simple and cheap,” the study states.

Disparity despite access

The study also reveals limitations to the impact of equal access to medical care, underscoring the importance of other health efforts.

The researchers compared mortality data of Sweden – where there is universal access to health care – to the United States. They found the overall mortality was lower in Sweden but the level of health inequality largely mirrored that of the United States. In Sweden, despite its extensive social safety net, the rich also live longer and the poor die younger. Specifically, among people alive at age 55, more than 40 percent of individuals at the bottom of the income distribution in Sweden will have died by age 80 – as opposed to fewer than 25 percent for those at the top of the distribution.

“This health inequality appears to be extremely stubborn,” Persson says. “We can throw a universal health insurance system at it and yet substantial inequality persists. So, is there anything else that can help us close that health gap between rich and poor?”

According to their latest research, yes.

Health effects from having a medical professional in the family were substantial and occurred across the income spectrum, according to the study. And because the effects from the exposure to medical expertise was often even stronger for those at the lower half of the income distribution, the researchers estimated that information-driven behaviors could make a significant difference in getting rid of health disparities.

Closer ties, less churn

The study did not examine the complexity of family dynamics or specific actions that led to the positive health effects, but the researchers hypothesize that the mere presence of a medical professional in the family translates somehow to either a heightened health culture or, at least, having a coach of sorts to encourage healthy, good-patient behavior.

Although general public health campaigns (e.g., “Get Your Flu Shot Today!”) may not carry the same level of influence as intimate dinner-table discussions or persistent prodding among family members, there could be other ways society can improve its exposure to medical expertise to lead to healthier, longer lives, the researchers say.

Community health worker or nurse outreach programs can perhaps lead to more targeted, personalized communication efforts, they say. Digital nudges delivered through mobile phone apps could potentially make healthy dents.

Reminders of preventive care can also come by way of closer patient-doctor relationships and more consistent, longer-term ties to the same doctor.

“The idea of continuity of care and developing a true relationship with your doctor, who becomes someone who pays attention to you as an individual and sees you and your family over a long period of time, is well known,” Polyakova says. “Today, it’s what they might call old-fashioned primary care, where the whole family goes to the same doctor for many years. Many countries, the U.S. included, appear to be moving increasingly away from this model, and our results suggest that we might want to do the reverse.”

The finding of how a closer family connection or closer proximity leads to even stronger health outcomes helps substantiate the potential difference a closer bond between any doctor and patient could make – improvements that would be hard to glean from rushed and infrequent medical appointments, Persson and Polyakova say.

Communication-focused health initiatives don’t have to come with hefty price tags either, they say.

“We pour a lot of resources into getting even fancier machines inside hospitals, but the things that are making a difference here are not that expensive,” Persson says of their findings. “These are cheap, easily scalable preventative investments that are translating to gains in longevity, which is remarkable.”

Sweden’s medical school lotteries

Using large-scale data from Sweden, the researchers focused on quantifying the role of informal exposure to health expertise via a medical professional in the family while avoiding results that would be muddled with other differences between individuals with and without a doctor in the family.

The researchers used two different approaches. First, they took advantage of the fact that in some years, lotteries were used to break ties among equally qualified applicants to Sweden’s medical schools. This allowed the researchers to use medical school application records and track the health of family members of applicants who won and lost the lottery.

The researchers looked at more than 30 years of continuous health and tax records spanning four generations of family members, and examined health-related outcomes of the extended family members of newly trained doctors and nurses – including their siblings, parents, grandparents, children, aunts, uncles, cousins and in-laws.

Second, researchers sought to double-check whether higher income and higher social status associated with the medical profession had anything to do with the positive health benefits they found.

One of the ways they did this was to draw a comparison to lawyers, a similarly paid profession. The parents of doctors, they found, were 16 percent more likely to be alive than the parents of lawyers 20 years after their children matriculated. The parents of doctors also faced lower prospects of lifestyle-related chronic diseases.

In addition to the higher likelihood of their parents living past age 80 and the lower likelihood of heart diseases, the relatives of health professionals showed higher levels of preventive behaviors, including purchases of heart and blood-thinning medications, and vaccinations for HPV, or human papillomavirus. Younger family members also had fewer hospital admissions and addiction cases.

“People with health professionals in the family essentially make preventative investments that everyone should be doing,” Persson says.

Americans know that choosing a health insurance plan can tough. And once you’re retired and possibly on a limited or fixed income, it can become downright brutal.

Stanford Health Policy’s M. Kate Bundorf and Maria Polyakova and their colleagues set out to develop an online decision-support tool to test whether machine-based expert recommendations would influence choice among Medicare Part D enrollees — and make it easier.

“The use of technology seems like a natural way to address the challenges of choosing among plans,” they write in their study published in Health Affairs.

Medicare beneficiaries have been choosing among Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans for years, and more recently the Affordable Care Act established health insurance marketplaces for those who are younger than 65.

All that choice is supposed to create incentives for plans to offer a variety of low-cost, high-quality products that allow people to choose the plan that best meets their needs.

But sometimes too many good choices can lead to bad outcomes.

“Health insurance is a complex financial product with complicated cost-sharing rules, and the implications of different benefit designs for out-of-pocket spending and health care use vary across consumers depending on their needs,” wrote Bundorf, chief of the Department of Health Research and Policy and an associate professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine.

Another researcher in the study was Albert Chan, chief of digital patient experience and an investigator at Sutter Health, in Palo Alto, as well as an adjunct professor at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Ming Tai-Seale, a professor of family medicine and public health at University of California San Diego, was also a principal investigator of the study.

Choosing Health Plan is Complicated

“Consistent with these challenges, researchers have documented that many consumers, both young and old, do not understand the characteristics of their plans,” they wrote in the March issue of Health Affairs, which is holding a public briefing on patients-as-consumers at the National Press Club on March 5th. Bundorf will present their research at the briefing in Washington, D.C., which will be streamed live and will be posted here once it has aired.

Image

“(Patients) often make decisions that may signal inaccurate evaluation of the costs and benefits of coverage — such as staying in their plan when better options are available, not enrolling in the plan that provides the best coverage for their drugs, or enrolling in plans that are objectively inferior to other available choices,” the authors wrote.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) offers a tool to help beneficiaries choose among plans, but older adults — even those with high levels of formal education — find it difficult to use.

So, the research team developed a decision-support software tool called CHOICE to assist Medicare beneficiaries in choosing a Part D prescription plan. The software automatically imported the user’s list of current drugs from their electronic medical records (allowing users to adjust the list if desired); the algorithm would then crunch the numbers to come up with three recommended plans which were likely to be the least expensive for the user.

The team then conducted a randomized trial of this software tool among 1,185 patients of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a large health-care provider in Northern California. Fifty-four percent of those patients were women, 65 percent were white, and 54 percent were married. Living in the Bay Area, their income and education levels were fairly high: They lived in areas in which the median income is $106,808 and 54 percent of the population has a college degree or more education.

While not representative of the general population of seniors in the United States, the researchers emphasized that it was important to conduct this study among these potential users, who are more likely to respond positively to an interaction with a computer. If these users didn’t find this software helpful or user friendly, it would not likely be a useful tool to roll out across the country as a whole.

Image

The study participants received access to one of two versions of the CHOICE tool: expert recommendations or individual analysis. Both versions automatically imported information on patients’ prescription drugs from their electronic health records and combined it with information on plan benefit design to provide individually customized information on users’ likely spending on both premiums and prescription drugs in each of the stand-alone Part D plans available in their area. The version of CHOICE that offered expert recommendations combined this information with an explicit recommendation on which plans were best for the user.

Willing and Able

The researchers found that providing an online tool not only increased older adults’ satisfaction with the process of choosing a prescription drug plan, but they also spent more time choosing that plan.

“The most significant finding of our trial is that individually customized information alone didn’t seem to be enough,” Bundorf, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), said in an interview. “The tool we developed was most effective when individually customized information paired with a clear-cut algorithmic expert recommendation that highlighted three plans that the computer thought were the best for the user based on total spending for prescription drugs.”

She said she was surprised to see that people spent more time choosing a plan and were more satisfied with the process when they had access to the CHOICE tool.

“Prior to our trial, I thought people might spend less time choosing a plan when they had access to expert recommendations because it would make the process easier,” Bundorf said. “But taken together, these results suggest that people are more engaged in decision-making when they have access to a patient-centered tool.”

Polyakova, who is also a faculty fellow at SIEPR, said a key takeaway from the trial is that people who are likely to use sophisticated tools are already more likely be more sophisticated shoppers of health care and prescription plans.

Opioids overdoses now kill more Americans than car accidents or guns, with more than 350,000 Americans having succumbed to the painkillers since 2000.

“The opioid misuse and overdose crisis touches everyone in the United States,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in this recent report. “The effects of the opioid crisis are cumulative and costly for our society — an estimated $504 billion a year in 2015 — placing burdens on families, workplaces, the health care system, states, and communities.”

Now, new research led by Stanford shows that not only have opioid-related deaths jumped fourfold in the last 20 years, but that those most affected by the epidemic, and where they live, has also shifted dramatically. In fact, the District of Columbia has had the fastest rate of increase in mortality from opioids, more than tripling every year since 2013.

“Although opioid-related mortality has been stereotyped as a rural, low-income phenomenon concentrated among Appalachian or midwestern states, it has spread rapidly, particularly among the eastern states,” writes Mathew V. Kiang, ScD, a research fellow at the Center for Population Health Sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, in an original investigation published in JAMA Network Open.

The study found the highest rates of opioid-related deaths and more rapid increases in mortality were observed in eight states: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire and Ohio. Two states, Florida and Pennsylvania, had opioid-related mortality rates that were doubling every two years — and tripling in Washington, D.C.

Kiang and his co-authors, including Stanford Health Policy’s Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD,an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine, used data from the National Center for Health Statistics and corresponding population estimates from the U.S. Census. The other authors are Jarvis Chen, ScD, at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Monica Alexander, PhD, in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto.

“It seems there has been a vast increase in synthetic opioid deaths in the eastern states and especially in the District of Columbia because illicit drugs are often tainted with fentanyl or other synthetic opioids,” Kiang said in an interview.  “People aren’t aware their drugs are laced and more potent than they expected — putting them at higher risk of overdose.”

Image

Synthetic opioid deaths now outnumber heroin deaths in these eastern states, which suggests fentanyl has spread to other illegal drugs and is no longer limited to heroin.

“The identification and characterization of opioid `hot spots’ — in terms of both high mortality rates and increasing trends in mortality — may allow for better-targeted policies that address the current state of the epidemic and the needs of the population,” the authors write.

The research suggests the opioid epidemic has evolved as three intertwined, but distinct waves, based on the types of opioids associated with mortality:

1. The first wave of opioid-related deaths was associated with prescription painkillers from the 1990s until about 2010.
2. From 2010 until the present, the second wave was associated with a large increase in heroin-related deaths.
3. And in the third and current wave, which began around 2013, the rapid increase is associated with illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids, such as tramadol and fentanyl.

“The evolution has also seen a wider range of populations being affected, with the spread of the epidemic from rural to urban areas and considerable increases in opioid-related mortality observed in the black population,” they write.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that African-Americans experienced the largest increase in opioid overdose deaths among any racial group from 2016 to 2017, with a 26 percent surge.

“The identification and characterization of opioid ‘hot spots’ — in terms of both high mortality rates and increasing trends in mortality — may allow for better-targeted policies that address the current state of the epidemic and the needs of the population,” the researchers write.

States are trying to combat the epidemic by enacting policies, such as restricting the supply of prescription drugs and expanding treatment and access to the overdose-reversing drug naloxone.

“Treating opioid use as a disorder should be our top priority to curb the problem,” said Kiang. “Similarly, we have the ability that counteract the effects of an overdose — these life-saving drugs should be easily accessible and widely available.”

To prescribe or not prescribe? In the realm of the nation’s opioid epidemic, it’s an important question.

Research has shown that inappropriate use of prescription opioids is part of the reason behind a dramatic rise in opioid-related deaths since 2000. By 2015, the amount of opioids prescribed in the U.S. had tripled — enough for every American to be medicated around the clock for three weeks, at 5 milligrams of hydrocodone every four hours. 

Now, new research by a trio of Stanford scholars shows how different insurance strategies affect the volume of opioid use and could help stem inappropriate prescribing behaviors. 

The study, released in a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, was co-authored by Stanford Health Policy’s Laurence C. Baker, M. Kate Bundorf, and Daniel P. Kessler. Baker and Bundorf are professors in the Department of Health Research and Policy at the Medical School; Kessler is a professor in the Law School and Graduate School of Business, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.  All are also senior fellows at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

Their study — the first to investigate the effect of the form of Medicare drug coverage on opioid use — found that enrollment in Medicare Advantage, a combined medical and drug insurance plan, significantly reduces the likelihood of beneficiaries filling an opioid prescription, as compared to enrollment in a stand-alone drug plan.

Compared to beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone plans, those enrolled in the integrated Medicare Advantage plan were 37 percent less likely to get an opioid prescription, according to their analysis of drug claims from 2014.

The researchers also found that enrollment in integrated insurance coverage under Medicare Advantage had a disproportionate effect on the likelihood of filling an opioid prescription from the nation’s highest opioid-prescribing doctors — the top 1 percent of prescribers in Medicare Part D. The lower likelihood of prescriptions from these high prescribers to Medicare Advantage enrollees accounted for more than half of the reduction, according to their findings.

To understand the scope of this health plan-related effect and what’s at stake, consider the backdrop laid out in the study:

Since its implementation in 2006, Medicare Part D has become the nation’s largest purchaser of prescription opioids. More than 42 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare Part D — either under the stand-alone drug plan or the integrated Medicare Advantage plan.

What’s more, opioid prescriptions are concentrated among a relatively small group of “high prescribers.” 

According to research published in the 2016 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, more than one-third of opioid prescriptions under Medicare Part D were made by about 8,000 doctors, making up the top 1 percent of prescribers. And according to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, “extreme use” and “questionable prescribing” have put almost 90,000 beneficiaries at serious risk for opioid misuse or overdose.

Because the researchers did not examine patient health outcomes, they could not definitively determine that enrollment in Medicare Advantage reduced only inappropriate opioid use. However, because the reduction in opioid use came disproportionately from high prescribers, and previous work has found that Medicare Advantage enrollees had higher prescription drug use overall, the reduction in use that the researchers found was targeted rather than a result of a broader effort to restrict access to treatment.  

The researchers’ results support the conclusions of previous work that integration of prescription drug coverage with the other benefits provided by Medicare Advantage plans

improves the quality of care. Further study will be needed to drill deeper into the reasons behind the impact of Medicare Advantage plans, and whether a similar effect occurs in non-elderly populations, the researchers said.

The national opioid epidemic has grown at such breakneck speed that public health experts have been left scrambling to keep up. Though they understand the reasons behind the abuse — the solutions are complicated and costly.

Yet there appears to be some success at reducing at least one area of opioid abuse.

In new research by Health Research and Policy’s Eric Sun, the risk for chronic opioid use among patients with musculoskeletal pain actually decreased slightly between 2008 and 2014. 

The Stanford Medicine assistant professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine found that measures such as avoiding opioid use soon after diagnosis can further reduce the risk of addiction, especially among patients at highest risk for chronic opioid use.

"We found that early opioid use after diagnosis is predictive of opioid use longer term, suggesting that it may be prudent to minimize opioid use where possible for patients with musculoskeletal pain,” said Sun, whose research was published earlier this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

His co-authors are Jasmin Moshfegh, who is working on her PhD in health policy, and Steven Z. George, director of musculoskeletal research at Duke University School of Medicine.

Patients with lower back or chronic neck, shoulder and knee pain are at the highest risk for opioid abuse since pain meds are typically prescribed to help ease their spasms. 

Patients who suffer musculoskeletal pain may unwittingly transition to chronic opioid use, which means filling 10 or more prescriptions or having a supply for at least 120 days. The prescription drugs include hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxymorphone, and/or oxycodone. Those don’t include heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Sun and his fellow researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine used a large health-care database to assess the risk and risk factors for chronic opioid use among more than 400,000 “opioid-naïve” patients — those who have never been prescribed painkillers before — recently diagnosed with pain in the knee, neck, lower back or shoulder. 

The sample was restricted to privately insured patients, thereby excluding other policy-relevant populations, such as those who were prescribed pain medications under Medicare or Medicaid.

They found that risk for chronic opioid use ranged from 0.3 percent for knee pain to 1.5 percent for multiple-site pan and decreased for some anatomical regions during the timeframe studied. They discovered a relative decline of 25 to 50 percent across all pain types from 2008 to 2014.

Opioid Abuse

Opioid abuse has its roots in the late 1990s when pharmaceutical companies assured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to pain relievers. Clinicians began prescribing them at greater rates because they worked so well and seemed safe.

Today, more than 130 people die every day from opioid-related drug overdoses from prescription pain relievers, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, From 2002 to 2017, there was more than a fourfold increase in opioid deaths, with some 49,000 people dying in 2017.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total economic burden of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United States is $78.5 billion a year, including the costs of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment and criminal justice involvement.

“While our research found that only about 1 percent of patients with musculoskeletal pain progress to chronic opioid use, this is potentially concerning because it’s an extremely common diagnosis,” Sun said. “By pointing out the scope of the issue and identifying factors that place patients at risk, we hope this research will guide further efforts aimed at reducing opioid use among patients with musculoskeletal pain.” 

Science moves forward when scientists take risks.

“For example, one of the hottest new ideas in cancer treatment involves using patients’ own immune cells to treat their cancer,” writes Stanford Health Policy’s Jay Bhattacharya in this policy brief. “The researchers who worked on these ideas when they were novel risked failure, but still pursued them.” 

The National Institutes of Health plays an important role in addressing this fail-to-win strategy underlying scientific research, Bhattacharya said. With a $37 billion annual budget, the NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research.

“As a public institution, it can be thought of as ‘patient capital,’ a funding source with a longtime horizon and an understanding that good ideas frequently lead down blind alleys,” Bhattacharya writes with his colleague, Mikko Packalen, a Stanford alumnus and associate professor of economics at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“By that standard, NIH ought to be putting money into novel ideas that cannot get funding from private sources,” they write.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine with a PhD in economics, and Packalen conducted a quantitative analysis to measure the extent to which NIH funds novel ideas. They looked at 24 million biomedical research articles in the MEDLINE database published between 1950 and 2017 with an American first author.

“An article was considered novel if the newest idea on which it was built upon was relatively recent in the sense that the idea had first appeared in any biomedical research paper at most a few years prior,” they said in the policy brief for the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where Bhattacharya is a senior fellow.

They found that from 2010 to 2016, the NIH disproportionately funded biomedical research based neither on the most recent ideas nor on the most longstanding ideas, but rather on those of intermediate vintage introduced into the literature between 1990 and 2005.

“Specifically, NIH funded research based on 10- to 25-year-old ideas at a 55 percent rate, compared with a 45 percent funding rate for more recent or older idea,” they write. “By contrast, from 1990 to 1999, NIH funded research based on new ideas at a higher rate than it funded research drawing on well-established ideas.

“This indicates that NIH has become less likely to support edge science over the past two decades,” the researchers concluded. “These results are disheartening and consistent with a growing body of scholarship that finds NIH review panels becoming more conservative and risk-averse.” 

Policy Reforms

The authors note the NIH recognizes the danger of underfunding high-risk ideas and has taken steps to counter “a creeping conservative bias” by increasing the number of training awards, paying bonuses to young researchers and developing methods for identifying high-risk ideas.

But more needs to be done, they said, recommending that the NIH:

1. Reform the review process and rethink how review panel members are selected;
2. Change the way it measures success to increase tolerance of failure;
3. Develop ways to directly measure the novelty of ideas;
4. Find additional ways to reward scientists working on novel ideas by taking steps to advance their careers.

“If the world’s foremost supporter of biomedical research has indeed become less open to edge science, as our analysis indicates, it bodes poorly for science.” 

Read the Full Policy Brief

The Trump administration has proposed a new rule that would require direct-to-consumer TV advertisements for prescription drugs to disclose the price of their products.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said the disclosures would help consumers “make informed decisions that minimize not only their out-of-pocket costs, but also expenditures borne by Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are significant problems.”

The idea enjoys broad public support, since medical care and drug costs continue to skyrocket.  A U.S. Senate report earlier this year revealed that the cost of the 20 most commonly prescribed brand-name drugs have risen tenfold in the past five years.

In a June 2018 poll, 76 percent of Americans favored required drug advertisements to include a statement about how much the drugs cost.

But Michelle Mello, a Stanford Law School professor and Stanford Medicine professor of health research and policy, writes in this New England Journal of Medicine perspective that the proposed rule raises substantial public health and legal concerns.

A potential unintended consequence of price disclosure may be to dissuade patients from seeking care, writes Mello and her co-author, Stacie B. Dusetzina of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, because of the perception that they cannot afford treatment. For example, Trulicity, a widely advertised drug for type 2 diabetes has a list price of $730 a month.

“Patients who could benefit from diabetes treatment may assume that they cannot afford it, when in fact insured patients’ costs for Trulicity may be much lower, and cheaper treatment options available,” they write. Metformin, for instance, costs $4 per month for patients who pay cash.

CMS would demand drug makers use the list prices from the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) in their television ads, including that costs “may be different” for those who are insured.

“This wording doesn’t communicate that costs to patients are probably much lower than the WAC,” writes Mello, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy.

This could have important legal implications as well, as compelled disclosures in advertising impinge on commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, they write, “disagreement about whether the WAC accurately represents a drug’s price could affect how courts assess the rule when constitutional challenges are inevitably filed.”

The researchers say three aspects of the proposed rule undercut the government’s ability to argue that it would improve patient decision-making and reduce drug spending: 

1. Price information does little to inform consumer decisions if it inaccurately represents actual cost.
2. Consumers can already obtain information on cash prices online and their own cost from their insurer.
3. The rule contains no meaningful enforcement mechanism; CMS plans only to list violators on its website, calling into question whether companies will comply.

“We think that a better alternative would be making patient-specific cost information accessible at the point of prescribing, “ the authors write. 

The cost of prescription drugs should become a routine part of clinician-patient discussions, although they acknowledge that this would put more time constraints on medical practices.

“Providing salient cost information at the right time could help reduce drug spending while preserving patient choice, but we believe that direct-to-consumer advertising is the wrong vehicle,” they write.

A national panel of medical experts is recommending for the first time that clinicians offer daily preventive medication to patients who are at high risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force estimates that 1.1 million Americans are currently living with HIV. More than 700,000 people have died from AIDS in the United States since the first cases were reported in 1981 and some 40,000 Americans are diagnosed with the virus each year.

Though HIV is treatable, there is still no vaccine and it has significant health consequences.

But the Task Force said in a published draft recommendation on Tuesday that it found “convincing evidence” that taking a daily pre-exposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, provides a substantial benefit in decreasing the risk of HIV infection in people at high risk. 

PrEP is a combination of two drugs, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, taken in one daily pill. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV from sex by more than 90 percent and by 70 percent for intravenous drug users.

“Unfortunately, HIV is still a major problem in the United States,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, vice-chairman of the Task Force, an independent, voluntary panel of experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine. “But the evidence on this daily treatment is that, if you take it properly, it’s very effective.”

The Task Force, whose recommendations are followed by primary care physicians and clinical practices across the country, gave the recommendation its highest grade, an A. But it noted that PrEP currently is not being used in many persons at high risk of HIV infection. 

“We hope our recommendation will bring attention to a very effective preventative service,” Owens said. “We want clinicians to be aware that for patients at high risk of HIV, PrEP is an important preventive strategy to discuss.”

The global AIDS epidemic has slowed in recent year. AIDS-related deaths have been reduced by more than 50 percent since the peak of the AIDS crisis in 2004. In 2017, 940,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses worldwide, compared to 1.4 million in 2010 and 1.9 million in 2004.

But many people remain at risk, including sex workers and people who have been trafficked.

The Task Force recommendation is only for those Americans who remain at high risk for contracting the virus, including:

1. Sexually active men whose male partners are already living with HIV, or have a recent sexually transmitted infection (STI) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia;
2. Heterosexual women and men who are sexually active and have an STI or partner living with HIV or who are inconsistent in their use of condoms with a partner at high risk of HIV;
3. People who inject drugs and either share drug injection equipment.

The Task Force reaffirmed its 2013 recommendation that people ages 15 to 65 and all pregnant women also be screened for HIV in an additional draft recommendation. Both recommendations are open for public comment until December 26.