Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, relays the potential risks and benefits of legalizing marijuana. His research focuses on drug policy, and he has written extensively about the effects of marijuana from a legal and health perspective.

California, Massachusetts and Nevada all legalized marijuana in the last election. Does this mean the legalization movement has reached a tipping point?  

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, it would probably feel that way, not because she’s a legalization advocate, but because she’d have bigger fish to fry and would probably continue President Obama’s laissez-faire approach. With the Trump administration’s new cabinet, all bets are off. Still, one in five Americans now live in a state where recreational use of marijuana is legal, and that’s a big market. And as the market grows, the industry’s lobbying clout grows.

What are the health risks post-legalization?

That depends on how much consumption levels increase. There are good reasons to expect marijuana prices to fall, which will increase consumption. Because many people use marijuana without health consequences, I worry less about an increase in the number of people using marijuana than about an increase in the number who use it one or more times daily. There is growing evidence that heavy marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis. We don’t know if it is a true cause-and-effect relationship; let’s hope it is not. But I think the biggest health threat is dependence, which for marijuana is something like getting stuck in the La Brea tar pits — your world just gets smaller and smaller as you get more dysfunctional.

Robert MacCoun, PhD

How can legalizing states combat these risks?

The good news is that legalization makes possible all sorts of regulatory options that weren’t available under prohibition. States should insist that no marijuana products are to be packaged in a way that entices children. Doses should be standardized, and there should be accurate labeling about the THC content. States should discourage products with high levels of THC, and perhaps encourage products with higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD), an ingredient that seems to counteract some of the harmful effects of THC.

The bad news is that the state ballot initiatives didn’t do much more than give lip service to public health and safety, and industry entrepreneurs are pushing back hard against state regulators. I think the industry is being foolish here — they’ve won eight states but still have 42 states to go. I don’t think they realize how quickly a backlash could emerge if those eight states show rising rates of various adverse outcomes.

Could there be any positive health effects of marijuana use?

Absolutely. There are plenty of lines of evidence suggesting medical benefits for some patients. Intriguingly, several new studies suggest that medical marijuana states may be experiencing reduced levels of opioid use and opioid overdoses. The Catch 22 is that the DEA decided not to reschedule marijuana because there isn’t enough rigorous evidence, but there isn’t enough rigorous evidence because the Feds have made such studies almost impossible to conduct.

Some of the biggest health benefits of marijuana will occur if it turns out that marijuana use is a substitute for binge drinking. There are both physiological and economic reasons to think that might be the case, but while some studies show substitution, others show complementarity. For a researcher, one big benefit of legalization is that it is going to help us finally answer a lot of these research questions.

Stanford Health Policy faculty members Michelle Mello, David Studdert and Laurence Baker discuss repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how it could affect health coverage in the United States.

Now that the United States has elected a Republican president and Congress, what is likely to happen to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?

Michelle Mello and David Studdert: Exactly what will happen is unclear at this point, particularly since President-elect Trump’s own position on the ACA seems to be evolving by the day. In an interview on Nov. 11, he said he is interested in keeping some of the key provisions of the law, such as a ban on insurers discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions and provisions allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. But his opposition to other provisions, including the cornerstone provision requiring individuals to purchase insurance coverage, likely will remain. At this point, about the only thing one can say with certainty is that substantial change is coming.

Is the ACA likely to be repealed fully, or will some components be spared?

Mello/Studdert: On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump said repeatedly that repealing Obamacare is a priority. House Republicans have said the same. A complete repeal seems unlikely in the short term, though. There’s more opposition to some provisions of the act than to others, and millions of Americans now depend on health insurance coverage made available through the ACA. More likely, Republicans will target certain key elements – the individual mandate, minimum essential coverage rules, the subsidies available to low-income purchasers of health insurance and federal financing arrangements for the Medicaid program. Eliminating all of these features would spell the end of Obamacare as we know it. Eliminating any one of them would seriously threaten its viability, because the ACA’s strategy depends on having all major legs of the stool in place.

What is the legal process for repeal, and what issues would likely arise?

Mello/Studdert: Although Republicans will have a majority in the House and Senate, they fall just short of a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes) in the Senate. This is why a repeal is not likely to occur – at least not straight away – unless several Senate Democrats break ranks in the vote. A more likely scenario is that Republicans will use the budget reconciliation process to make the kind of changes mentioned above. Bills of this kind require only a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate, which they have.

Laurence Baker: Republicans have substantial ability to remove parts of the law under budget reconciliation. They can make changes to aspects of the ACA that involve financial in- and outflows to the federal government, but not other things. Reconciliation thus allows them to make changes to the major things like the mandate – because it involves a tax penalty – the subsidies and Medicaid. But they would not be easily able to repeal things like the exchange structures, guaranteed offers of insurance regardless of health status and other provisions. Guaranteed issue would be a real problem for insurance companies without the mandate, so repealing one but not the other threatens significant disruptions in insurance markets.

Most of the discussions thus far have focused on efforts to repeal the ACA’s expanding coverage aspects, but there are other aspects of the ACA that could be addressed. The ACA set up and funds the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), two organizations that have not been discussed much in the repeal debates and which are seen by some Republicans in a more positive light. The ACA also makes changes to Medicare payments. It seems likely that repeal debates will focus more on coverage and less on these things, but it’s hard to tell at this point.

How will this affect Americans who current receive subsidies for health insurance?

Mello/Studdert: Elimination of the subsidies would have a major effect on the ACA’s core objective to cover the uninsured. By 2017, about 25 million people will have purchased their health insurance on the exchanges set up under the ACA, and about three-quarters of them will receive subsidies to help make premiums affordable. If the subsidies disappear, we should expect that health insurance will become unaffordable for many of these people or no longer look like a good deal. The tax credits and health savings accounts currently being discussed won’t make up for what is lost, and many people who currently have insurance can be expected to drop it. Elimination of the individual mandate will further open the way for this to happen.

Baker: The reality of the health care system is that there are not easily available alternatives to the ACA that would protect coverage and be palatable to broad groups of Republicans. Single-payer, or national health insurance, is a non-starter, so they’d be left with market-oriented reforms, and there are not obvious ways to pursue those without at least some core features of the ACA. Most of the proposals recently put forward for a replacement, including those highlighted by the Trump campaign, like cross-state competition, tax credits for insurance purchase and block granting Medicaid, would not really offer coverage to a large number of the people who would lose it under repeal. So a key question is what alternatives the Republicans come up with. In a similar way, the ACA and its provisions have become increasingly woven into our insurance system. Insurers and employers, among others, have made decisions and investments incorporating the ACA. Undoing those threatens disruptions and political challenges.

Michelle Mello is a professor of law and of health research and policy.

David Studdert is a professor of law and of medicine.

Laurence Baker is a professor of health research and policy, chair of the Department of Health Research and Policy in the School of Medicine and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends adults ages 40 to 75 with no history of heart disease — but who nevertheless have at least one risk factor and an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease — take a low- to moderate-dose statin.

Stanford researchers have determined that more than 15 million children are living in high-mortality hotspots across 28 Sub-Saharan African countries, where death rates remain stubbornly high despite progress elsewhere within those countries.

The study, published online Oct. 25 in The Lancet Global Health, is the first to record and analyze local-level mortality variations across a large swath of Sub-Saharan Africa.

These hotspots may remain hidden even as many countries are on track to achieve one of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals: reducing the mortality rate of children under 5 to 25 per 1,000 by 2030. National averages are typically used for tracking child mortality trends, allowing left-behind regions within countries to remain out of sight — until now.

The senior author of the study is Eran Bendavid, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy. The lead author is Marshall Burke, PhD, an assistant professor of Earth System Science and a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute’s Center on Food Security and the Environment.

Decline in under-5 mortality rate

The authors note that the ongoing decline in under-5 mortality worldwide ranks among the most significant public and population health successes of the past 30 years. Deaths of children under the age of 5 years have fallen from nearly 13 million a year in 1990 to fewer than 6 million a year in 2015, even as the world’s under-5 population grew by nearly 100 million children, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

“However, the amount of variability underlying this broad global progress is substantial,” the authors wrote.

“Mortality numbers are typically tracked at the national level, with the assumption that national differences between countries, such as government spending on health, are what determine progress against mortality,” Bendavid said. “The goal of our work was to understand whether national-level mortality statistics were hiding important variation at the more local level — and then to use this information to shed light on broader mortality trends.”

The authors used data from 82 U.S. Agency for International Development surveys in 28 Sub-Saharan African countries, including information on the location and timing of 3.24 million births and 393,685 deaths of children under 5, to develop high-resolution spatial maps of under-5 mortality from the 1980s through the 2000s.

Using this database, the authors found that local-level factors, such as climate and malaria exposure, were predictive of overall patterns, while national-level factors were relatively poor predictors of child mortality.

Image

Temperature, malaria exposure, civil conflict

“We didn’t see jumps in mortality at country borders, which is what you’d expect if national differences really determined mortality,” said co-author Sam Heft-Neal, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in Earth System Science. “But we saw a strong relationship between local-level factors and mortality.”

For example, he said, one standard deviation increase in temperature above the local average was related to a 16-percent higher child mortality rate. Local malaria exposure and recent civil conflict were also predictive of mortality.

The authors found that 23 percent of the children in their study countries live in mortality hotspots — places where mortality rates are not declining fast enough to meet the targets of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. The majority of these live in just two countries: Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In only three countries do fewer than 5 percent of children live in hotspots: Benin, Namibia and Tanzania.

As part of the research, the authors have established a high-resolution mortality database with local-level mortality data spanning the last three decades to provide “new opportunities for a deeper understanding of the role that environmental, economic, or political conditions play in shaping mortality outcomes.”  The database, available at http://fsedata.stanford.edu, is an open-source tool for health and environmental researchers, child-health experts and policymakers.

“Our hope is that the creation of a high-resolution mortality database will provide other researchers new opportunities for deeper understanding of the role that environmental, economic or political conditions play in shaping mortality outcomes,” said Bendavid.  “These data could also improve the targeting of aid to areas where it is most needed.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. 

As health-care costs climb ever upward, controlling expenses without sacrificing high-quality care becomes increasingly important. Payment systems based on the value of care are emerging as a way to combat rising costs.

Many researchers like Jason Wang, an associate professor of pediatrics and a Stanford Health Policy core faculty member, have found that bundled payment systems may help health-care institutions achieve better value of care.

In a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Oncology, Wang and his co-authors show that a value-based bundled payment system is associated with cost containment and improvement in care, even improving chances for survival.

The study examined Taiwan’s bundled pay-for-performance (PFP) system for breast cancer. Instead of the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) system that is typical in the United States — in which every test, surgery and exam is billed individually — this system includes all aspects of treatment in a single established cost, or bundled payment.

Based on guidelines set by Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA), the pilot program reimbursed health-care institutions’ costs for breast cancer treatment based on the patient’s cancer stage, 0 to IV. Institutions that exceeded the NHIA’s standards received a financial bonus as an incentive for better performance.

The study followed 4,215 patients in the bundled-care system over a five-year period, comparing the quality of their care, the cost of their treatment and the outcomes of their treatment to 12,506 similar patients in the traditional FFS system.

The authors found that patients in the bundled-payment system received better care throughout treatment, were more likely to survive, and contained medical costs over time, compared to their peers in the FFS system.

Costs for patients in the bundled payment system remained about the same throughout the study. However, the cost of treatment for those in the FFS system steadily increased throughout the study period. By the end, even health-care institutions receiving the maximum bonus incentive would incur lower costs than those in the FFS system.

Yet even though their treatment was cheaper, patients in the bundled system experienced better results. Patients using the bundled system had significantly higher survival rates for cancer stages 0 to III, and they were more likely to receive higher quality care based on quality indicators.

This is largely due to the better coordination of care made necessary by the bundled system, according to Wang.

“When you play in an orchestra, the whole group needs to play together, so it plays the right tune,” said Wang. “Focusing on value for the patient and the health-care system forces people to play the same tune.”

Wang believes the lessons learned from Taiwan’s program could be applied in other parts of the world, including the United States, which is currently moving toward bundled cancer care.

Though the U.S. already bundles care for conditions like appendicitis and chemotherapy — in which costs are fairly predictable — many hospital administrators fear that broadening the use of bundled payments for more complex conditions is too risky, financially.

Wang does not share their misgivings.

“People say, ‘We can’t do this for a very complex disease.’ It’s not true,” he said. “When we went outside of the U.S., we started to find systems that work.”

Wang found that when institutions can coordinate care for patients — that is, when a single institution manages all aspects of a patient’s care — the patient is more likely to have better outcomes.

“If institutions take the leadership of providing the infrastructure to coordinate care, they can really deliver better care with the same or lower costs.”

There are benefits for the institutions, too. Right now, because health insurance providers may accept or reject particular costs in an unpredictable way, care institutions never know how much they’re going to get paid for a service. But in a bundled payment system, costs are much more stable and revenue easier to predict.

Considering the benefits, Wang hopes the Taiwan breast cancer study will show institutions in the United States and around the world that bundled payments for cancer can be done on a broad scale.

The value, he said, is worth the risk.

Ponte a prueba. Put yourself to the test.

As he explained during the recent Rosenkranz Prize Symposium, Stefano M. Bertozzi used this slogan to promote health reform in the Mexico City prison system. By encouraging inmates to step up and get themselves tested for HIV and other chronic illnesses, Bertozzi, dean and professor of health policy and management at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, was able to decrease the spread of illnesses in Mexican prisons and the surrounding communities.

The Rosenkranz Prize Symposium celebrated research projects that—like Bertozzi’s—address the health care needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations. With support from the Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, Stanford scholars have stepped up to tackle health issues in regions in need.

Since 2010, the award has funded six young Stanford researchers who aim to improve health in developing countries. The symposium celebrated their achievements.

The award honors the work of Dr. George Rosenkranz who spent his career reducing health disparities around the globe. Rosenkranz, who was the first to synthesize cortisone and the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, also celebrated his 100^th birthday at the symposium.

Producing research that will increase care for vulnerable populations globally is the ultimate goal of the Rosenkranz Prize.

Andrés Moreno-Estrada, the 2012 winner, has used the award to study genetics in Latin American and Caribbean populations, aiming to increase knowledge of potential genetic illnesses. He said, “The Rosenkranz Prize is a clear, important step forward to demonstrate that we can do cutting edge science in developing countries that is of international relevance.”

Other winners include Eran Bendavid, Sanjay Basu, Marcella Alsan, Jason Andrews and Ami Bhatt. Their projects range from the effect of AIDS relief efforts on health care delivery to the treatment of diabetes in India to low-cost diagnostic tools for regions lacking infrastructure.

“I can’t think of a better way to celebrate (my father’s) birthday than listening to the bright future of science,” said Ricardo T. Rosenkranz, son of Dr. George Rosenkranz and a prize donor. “We can’t wait to hear what the next Rosenkranz Prize winners tell us.”

Click below for event photo gallery: