Abstract

Objectives. We assessed the potential health and economic benefits of reducing common risk factors in older Americans.
Methods. A dynamic simulation model tracked a national cohort of persons 51 and 52 years of age to project their health and medical spending in prevention scenarios for diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking.
Results. The gain in life span from successful treatment of a person aged 51 or 52 years for obesity would be 0.85 years; for hypertension, 2.05 years; and for diabetes, 3.17 years. A 51- or 52-year-old person who quit smoking would gain 3.44 years. Despite living longer, those successfully treated for obesity, hypertension, or diabetes would have lower lifetime medical spending, exclusive of prevention costs. Smoking cessation would lead to increased lifetime spending. We used traditional valuations for a life-year to calculate that successful treatments would be worth, per capita, $198018 (diabetes), $137964 (hypertension), $118946 (smoking), and $51750 (obesity).
Conclusions. Effective prevention could substantially improve the health of older Americans, and—despite increases in longevity—such benefits could be achieved with little or no additional lifetime medical spending.

BACKGROUND: The burden of hypertension and related health care needs among Mexican Americans will likely increase substantially in the near future.

OBJECTIVES: In a nationally representative sample of U.S. Mexican American adults we examined: 1) the full range of blood pressure categories, from normal to severe; 2) predictors of hypertension awareness, treatment and control and; 3) prevalence of comorbidities among those with hypertension.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of pooled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 1999-2004. PARTICIPANTS: The group of participants encompassed 1,359 Mexican American women and 1,421 Mexican American men, aged 25-84 years, who underwent a standardized physical examination.

MEASUREMENTS: Physiologic measures of blood pressure, body mass index, and diabetes. Questionnaire assessment of blood pressure awareness and treatment.

RESULTS: Prevalence of Stage 1 hypertension was low and similar between women and men ( approximately 10%). Among hypertensives, awareness and treatment were suboptimal, particularly among younger adults (65% unaware, 71% untreated) and those without health insurance (51% unaware, 62% untreated). Among treated hypertensives, control was suboptimal for 56%; of these, 23% had stage >/=2 hypertension. Clustering of CVD risk factors was common; among hypertensive adults, 51% of women and 55% of men were also overweight or obese; 24% of women and 23% of men had all three chronic conditions-hypertension, overweight/obesity and diabetes.

CONCLUSION: Management of hypertension in Mexican American adults fails at multiple critical points along an optimal treatment pathway. Tailored strategies to improve hypertension awareness, treatment and control rates must be a public health priority.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a technology frequently used to evaluate low back pain, despite evidence that challenges the usefulness of routine MRI and the surgical interventions it may trigger. We analyze the relationship between MRI supply and care for fee-for-service Medicare patients with low back pain. We find that increases in MRI supply are related to higher use of both low back MRI and surgery. This is worrisome, and careful attention should be paid to assessing the outcomes for patients.

Despite recommendations for voluntary HIV screening, few medical centres have implemented screening programmes. The objective of the study was to determine whether an intervention with computer-based reminders and feedback would increase screening for HIV in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care system. The design of the study was a randomized controlled trial at five primary care clinics at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. All primary care providers were eligible to participate in the study. The study intervention was computer-based reminders to either assess HIV risk behaviours or to offer HIV testing; feedback on adherence to reminders was provided. The main outcome measure was the difference in HIV testing rates between intervention and control group providers. The control group providers tested 1.0% (n = 67) and 1.4% (n = 106) of patients in the preintervention and intervention period, respectively; intervention providers tested 1.8% (n = 98) and 1.9% (n = 114), respectively (P = 0.75).In our random sample of 753 untested patients, 204 (27%) had documented risk behaviours. Providers were more likely to adhere to reminders to test rather than with reminders to perform risk assessment (11% versus 5%, P < 0.01). Sixty-one percent of providers felt that lack of time prevented risk assessment. In conclusion, in primary care clinics in our setting, HIV testing rates were low. Providers were unaware of the high rates of risky behaviour in their patient population and perceived important barriers to testing. Low-intensity clinical reminders and feedback did not increase rates of screening.

Estimating the potential health benefits and expenditures of a partially effective HIV vaccine is an important consideration in the debate about whether HIV vaccine research should continue. We developed an epidemic model to estimate HIV prevalence, new infections, and the cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies in the U.S. Vaccines with modest efficacy could prevent 300,000-700,000 HIV infections and save $30 billion in healthcare expenditures over 20 years. Targeted vaccination of high-risk individuals is economically efficient, but difficulty in reaching these groups may mitigate these benefits. Universal vaccination is cost-effective for vaccines with 50% efficacy and price similar to other infectious disease vaccines.

The current focus of the health reform debate is rightfully beginning to shift to the need to transform the delivery system to contain the long run growth in costs. Although much of the debate still focuses on the role of a public plan, this ignores the need for fundamental change. None of the options on the table will transform the delivery system. If passed, the best the current proposals could do is to expand enrollment and perhaps contain federal costs, but on its own the public plan will be unable to make the delivery system more efficient.

To control health care costs, I propose a publicly chartered major risk pool, or MRP, that
will allow plans to pool risk, thereby eliminating the need for wasteful underwriting and
selective marketing costs. Participation in the MRP by both providers and insurers is
voluntary. It can be combined with any public option in an exchange implemented at the
federal or state level; it can even work without a public option. After a brief transition
period, the MRP requires no federal funds and will not be “on budget.” By allowing private plans to play a role in a transformed insurance and delivery system, the MRP can be politically attractive to a broader constituency than any of the current proposals.

The MRP addresses a key component of comprehensive health reform: restructuring the
delivery system. It is not a simple reinsurance pool that reimburses health plans for high costclaims. Instead, it creates a reformed payment system for both inpatient care and outpatient chronic care that will encourage efficiency and quality. The MRP will cover inpatient and similar short but expensive episodes, as well as chronic illness management. Its new payment approaches will achieve the efficiency goals promised by proposals for hospital medical staff-focused Accountable Care Organizations, but in an organizationally more plausible manner. Hospitals and physicians who focus on inpatient care and voluntarily form Care Delivery Teams will receive bundled episode-based payments, but the MRP will pay providers regardless of whether they belong to a Care Delivery Team, although at less attractive rates. Providers in these teams can use their bargaining power to charge the primary insurers more than the MRP pays. The MRP’s payments for monthly chronic illness management will give health plans and primary care physicians the incentives, flexibility, and information to more effectively compensate clinicians for the care they deliver and coordinate. By being publicly chartered, but independent of Congress, and by allowing options for all players, the MRP will be able to sidestep the ability of special interests to block change.

Objectives To assess the concurrent validity and responsiveness of the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) in patients with advanced HIV/AIDS, and to determine the responsiveness of this measure, the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D to HIV-related clinical events.

Methods Data from the OPTIMA (OPTions In Management with Antiretrovirals) trial was analyzed. Two aspects of the validity of the HUI3 were considered: concurrent validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations with MOS-HIV component and summary scores. Responsiveness to AIDS-defining events (ADE) and all adverse events (our external change criterion) was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves.

Results The study enrolled 368 patients (mean follow-up: 3.66 years); 82% had at least one severe adverse event and 27% had at least one ADE. The HUI3 scale and items showed good concurrent validity, with 85% of the expected relationships with the MOS-HIV subscales verified. The HUI3 was responsive to both adverse events (AUROC [95%CI]: 0.68 [0.57, 0.80]) and ADEs (0.62 [0.51, 0.74]). The EQ-5D was responsive to ADEs (0.66 [0.56, 0.76]), but not responsive to adverse events (0.56 [0.46, 0.68]).

Conclusion The HUI3 is a valid and responsive measure of the change in HRQoL associated with clinical events in an advanced HIV/AIDS population.

As pressure builds on the White House and Congress to deliver on their promise of health care reform, the idea of a government health insurance company to compete with for-profit and not-for-profit private companies is gaining political momentum. Advocates claim that this new company would be more efficient, honest, and successful in forcing lower reimbursement rates on physicians and hospitals. However, a close look at how the present health care system functions, what its major problems are, and what reforms are needed to solve them suggests that this new idea is not the answer. The three major problems of the current U.S. system are that 45 million to 50 million people have no health insurance, the cost of care is high and rapidly increasing, and there are gross lapses in the quality of care. There is no reason to think that a government insurance company would make a significant dent in any one of these problems, let alone all three. To do that would require real reform in the financing, organization, and delivery of care.