The U.S. government has invested $1.4 billion in HIV prevention programs that promote sexual abstinence and marital fidelity, but there is no evidence that these programs have been effective at changing sexual behavior and reducing HIV risk, according to a new Stanford University School of Medicine study.

Previously: PEPFAR has saved lives – and not just from HIV/AIDS, Stanford study finds
 

Americans spent $3 trillion on health care in 2014, or about $9,523 per person. That’s up 5.3 percent from the previous year. That increase isn’t expected to slow down; for about the next decade, the U.S. government  expects spending to grow 5.8 percent on average each year.

As policymakers look for ways to cut down this spending, one idea gaining traction is to incentivize consumer-directed health plans (CDHP). These high-deductible, low-cost plans are already growing in popularity. About 20 percent of people who are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance are enrolled in some type of CDHP.

In theory, CDHPs would reduce health-care costs because consumers would choose less expensive health care when they pay for it themselves. But does that theory pan out in practice? M. Kate Bundorf, an associate professor of political economy, examines the benefits — and the trouble spots. Bundorf is also a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy.

People who inject drugs make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. adult population. But about 10 percent of new HIV infections in this country are attributable to injection drug use.

So it stands to reason that focusing on HIV interventions for drug users who get high through injection could have tremendous public health benefits, Stanford researchers contend in a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We already know that the health benefits of interventions for high-risk individuals extend to the entire U.S. population,” said Cora Bernard, a PhD student in Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University and lead author of the paper, “Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis for People Who Inject Drugs in the United States.”

“And with the recent surges in opiate drug use in the U.S. and HIV outbreaks in places like Scott County, Indiana, it’s increasingly important to invest in prevention programs that are both effective and cost-effective, ” Bernard said.

The authors used new clinical data to determine that pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis, combined with frequent screening and prompt treatment for those who do become infected, could reduce the HIV burden among those who inject drugs.

And that provides a public health benefit for all Americans.

”Value is an important consideration in health policy decisions that have substantial budget implications,” said Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an associate professor of medicine at Stanford and senior author of the paper.

However, prescription drugs costs in the United States are among the highest in the world, making this form of intervention quite expensive.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a daily combination of 300 mg of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and 200 mg of emtricitabine (FTC) for HIV-negative patients, at a cost of about $10,000 per patient a year.

Add to that the cost of the HIV screening and assessment for adverse effects every three months and monitoring for toxicities every six months.

“This kind of cost scales fast,” said Bernard. “Although you’d be preventing the downstream costs of some infections, providing PrEP to 25 percent of HIV-negative people who inject drugs for just one year would require an upfront investment of over $3 billion.”

“Our analysis highlights the importance of trying to provide this effective intervention less expensively,” noted Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, of the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, and professor of medicine at Stanford. 

Successful Trials

Many trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) — or taking HIV medications to reduce the chance of infection — can prevent heterosexual and same-sex transmission of HIV.

The Bangkok Tenofovir Study, the first randomized trial of PrEP for people who inject drugs, reported a 49 percent reduction in HIV infection in this high-risk population in Thailand.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its clinical practice guidelines in 2014 to recommend that PrEP be considered for any adult who injected drugs within the previous six months, shared needles, enrolled in drug dependence treatment, or was at increased risk for sexual transmission.

Image

Although prior studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of PrEP for men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs differ in risk behaviors and HIV incidence. So the authors performed a model-based evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of expanding PrEP for people who inject drugs in the United States.

They incorporated new clinical trial results with epidemiologic and economic data to determine the optimal conditions under which pre-exposure interventions can be delivered to this high-risk population.

Their model captures sexual and injection transmissions between people who inject drugs, gay men, and all other U.S. adult heterosexuals between 2015 and 2035. The model includes opioid agonist therapy, such as methadone treatment, HIV screening and awareness, and antiretroviral treatment.

The authors found that PrEP along with frequent HIV screening and antiretroviral drugs for those who do become infected averted 26,700 infections and reduced HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs by 14 percent, compared to the current status quo. Achieving these benefits costs $253,000 per quality-adjusted life year (known as QALY, a common metric used to compare cost-effectiveness interventions.)

In comparison, needle-syringe exchange programs cost in the range of $4,500 to $34,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

Total expenditures for a PrEP program for this high-risk population could be as much as $44 billion over 20 years. This is equivalent to annually spending around 10 percent of the current federal budget for domestic HIV/AIDS on PrEP for people who inject drugs.

Is it worth it?

The authors concluded that frequent screening and pre-exposure prophylaxis, as well as prompt treatment for those who become infected, could reduce the HIV burden among people who inject drugs and provide substantial public health benefits.

They determined that enrolling 25 percent of HIV-negative people who inject drugs in a program that combined PrEP, screening and antiretroviral drugs would reduce the HIV burden in the United States.

But it is expensive.

“Cost effectiveness is only one of many considerations for policymakers, who must also evaluate the ethical dimensions of an HIV prevention program for a population with generally low access to health services,” the authors wrote.

However, given that there are other interventions for this population with demonstrated cost-effectiveness, they conclude that policymakers will want to consider the broad range of programs available for HIV prevention in this group.

The authors are now at work to directly compare PrEP with other prevention programs and identify cost-effective strategies for this high-risk population.

In an editorial that accompanies the paper, Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, asks: “What good is preventing HIV if we do not first save that life at HIV risk?”

“As biomedical advances finally hold the promise of both effective HIV prevention and durable virologic suppression,” Walensky continues, “it may seem heretical to disfavor investments in PrEP for PWID. But now is the time to be maximally efficient (dare we say even frugal?) with HIV prevention resources to ensure their greatest impact, because the problems related to PWID (such as the immediate and high mortality associated with overdose) are far greater than the no-longer-deadly threat of HIV itself.”

Science and common sense tell us that the teenage brain is more vulnerable to peer pressure and susceptible to nicotine addiction than at any other stage of development.

That’s why California legislators recently voted to raise the legal age to buy cigarettes and tobacco products from 18 to 21. If Gov. Jerry Brown signs the bill, California will become the second state, after Hawaii, to raise the age limit on the unhealthy products.

Yet while more than 100 cities around the country have adopted such laws — including New York, Boston and Cleveland — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in January vetoed such a bill, despite strong bipartisan support from his state legislators.

Health policy advocates see the Christie veto as a setback in what they believe is an otherwise accelerating movement toward “Tobacco 21” laws as a new tool for curbing young people’s potential addiction to tobacco products and e-cigarettes.

Michelle Mello, a Stanford professor of law and health research and policy, and colleagues from Harvard University and Baylor College of Medicine argue in this New England Journal of Medicine article that there is new evidence to suggest these laws are effective, have great public support and have minimal economic impact in the short term.

“The vast majority of smokers begin smoking during adolescence, a period when the brain has heightened susceptibility to nicotine addiction,” they write. “Nearly everyone who buys cigarettes for minors in the United States is under 21 years of age; raising the sale age prevents high school students from buying tobacco products for their peers.”

In 2013, only eight U.S. municipalities had adopted Tobacco 21 laws. By March 2016, at least 125 localities and the state of Hawaii had done so, and California is on the cusp of following suit. In September 2015, the first federal Tobacco 21 legislation was introduced (Tobacco to 21 Act, S. 2100) by U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI).

The authors note an analysis of the effects of one such law adopted in Needham, MA, revealed a 47 percent reduction in the smoking rate among high school students, along with a reported decline in area retail tobacco purchases. The decreases were significantly greater than those in 16 comparison communities without Tobacco 21 laws.

And a 2015 report by an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee provided evidence from two different simulation models that increasing the minimum age to 21 would lead to a 12 percent reduction in smoking prevalence. Another simulation study predicted that there would be an even larger effect: a nearly 60 percent reduction in adolescent smoking within seven years after nationwide implementation of a Tobacco 21 law.

Image

Two national public opinion studies published in 2015 found that 70 to 75 percent of Americans — including a majority of current smokers — support raising the minimum purchase age to 21. The authors themselves conducted a national survey of 1,125 American adults regarding their attitudes toward various public health laws.

“We found that three in four Americans support the adoption of a federal Tobacco 21 law,” they write. “Majority support extends across all major socio-demographic groups, including 68.3 percent support among young adults 18 to 24 years of age.”

Opponents of the federal and state bills — namely Tobacco interests, convenience store owners and e-cigarette manufacturers — say that states should not be in the business of policing public choice. Store owners contend raising the age limit would hurt sales, as snacks and soft drinks are typically ancillary purchases with cigarettes.

And some veterans’ organizations and Republican legislators have said it is wrong to take away the decision on whether to smoke from young people who are nevertheless old enough to marry, vote and join the military.

But Mello and her coauthors, Stephanie R. Morain, PhD, MPH, and Jonathan P. Winickoff, MD, MPH, say the long-term benefits of raising the age limit far surpass the near-term economic concerns, which they believe are overstated.

Research indicates that in the short term, raising the tobacco-purchasing age to 21 would result in a 2-3 percent annual decrease in total tobacco sales.

“Over the longer term, the revenue loss from decreased smoking prevalence will be substantial,” they concede. “But allowing future generations to become addicted to nicotine in order to preserve tobacco revenue fails the red-face test as an argument against Tobacco 21.”

If a federal law raising the legal age of purchasing cigarettes were implemented today, the Institute of Medicine estimates that would result in 249,000 fewer premature deaths, 45,000 fewer deaths from lung cancer, and 4.2 million fewer lost-life years among Americans born between 2010 and 2019.

“Local and state efforts have succeeded in extending Tobacco 21 protections to more than 16 million Americans,” the authors write. “We believe the time has come to expand this effective, broadly supported approach to a much greater share of the population.”

Nearly 100 health economists from across the United States signed a pledge urging U.S. presidential candidates to make chronic disease a policy priority. Karen Eggleston, a scholar of comparative healthcare systems and director of Stanford’s Asia Health Policy Program, is one of the signatories. 

The pledge calls upon the candidates to reset the national healthcare agenda to better address chronic disease, which causes seven out of 10 deaths in America and affects the economy through lost productivity and disability.

Read the pledge below.

"What do I do about the chickens?"

When assistant professor of medicine Eran Bendavid began a study on livestock in African households to determine impact on childhood health, he'd already anticipated common field problems like poorly captured or intentionally misreported data, difficulty getting to work sites, or problems with training local volunteers.

But he'd never gotten that particular question from a fieldworker before. It didn't occur to him that participating families, in reporting their livestock holdings, would completely omit the chickens running around at their feet, thereby skewing the data.

"They didn't consider chickens to be livestock," recalled Bendavid. Along with Scott Rozelle, the Helen F. Farnsworth Senior Fellow at FSI, and associate professor of political science and FSI senior fellow Beatriz Magaloni, Bendavid spoke to a full house last week on lessons learned from fieldwork gone awry. The return engagement of FSI's popular seminar, "Everything that can go wrong in a field experiment” was introduced by Jesper Sørensen, executive director of Stanford Seed, and moderated by Katherine Casey, assistant professor of political economy at the GSB. The seminar is a product of FSI and Seed’s joint Global Development and Poverty (GDP) Initiative, which to date has awarded nearly $7 million in faculty research funding to promote research on poverty alleviation and economic development worldwide.

Rozelle, co-director of the Rural Education Action Program, spoke of the obstacles to accurate data gathering, especially in rural areas where record-keeping is inaccurate and participants' trust is low. Arriving in a Chinese village to carry out child nutrition studies, said Rozelle, "we found Grandma running out the back door with the baby." The researchers had worked with the local family planning council to find the names of children to study, but the families thought the authorities were coming to penalize them for violation of the one-child policy.

Cultural differences make for entertaining and illuminating (if frustrating) lessons, but Beatriz Magaloni, director of FSI's Program on Poverty and Governance at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law had a different story to tell. Over the course of three years, her GDP-funded work to investigate and reduce police violence in Brazil - a phenomenon resulting in more than 22,000 deaths since 2005 - has encountered obstacle after obstacle. Her work to pilot body-worn cameras on police in Rio has faced a change in police leadership, setting back cooperation; a yearlong struggle to decouple a study of TASER International’s body worn cameras from its electrical weapons in the same population; a work site initially lacking electricity to charge the cameras or Internet to view the feeds; and noncompliance among the officers. "It's discouraging at times," admitted Magaloni, who has finally gotten the cameras onto the officers' uniforms and must now experiment with ways to incentivize their use. "We are learning a lot about how institutional behavior becomes so entrenched and why it's so hard to change."

Experimentation is a powerful tool to understand cause and effect, said Casey, but a tool only works if it's implemented properly. Learning from failure makes for an interesting panel discussion. The speakers' hope is that it also makes for better research in the future.

The Global Development and Poverty Initiative is a University-wide initiative of the Stanford Institute for Innovation in Developing Economies (Seed) in partnership with the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI). GDP was established in 2013 to stimulate transformative research ideas and new approaches to economic development and poverty alleviation worldwide. GDP supports groundbreaking research at the intersection of traditional academic disciplines and practical application. GDP uses a venture-funding model to pursue compelling interdisciplinary research on the causes and consequences of global poverty. Initial funding allows GDP awardees to conduct high-quality research in developing countries where there is a lack of data and infrastructure.

The threat of a pandemic claiming millions of lives and devastating economies around the world is as serious as the potential perils of global climate change, renowned economist Larry Summers told a Stanford audience during a recent visit to campus.

The world is taking dramatic and costly steps to prevent the calamitous impact of climate change on the economies and national security of most countries. Yet preparations for a worldwide pandemic on the scale of the 1918 flu are vastly underfunded and ill-formed.

“My biggest fear is that the world is way short of focus on all the issues associated with pandemic,” said Summers, former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and Harvard president emeritus, who in recent years has focused on the economics of global health care.

“We are talking about something that could kill surely tens of millions and perhaps 100 million people, and the Stanford football program is substantially more expensive than the WHO budget for pandemic flu,” he said. “It’s just crazy that we are so underinvested and underprepared.”

Summers, the Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard, also served as director of the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration. He was in conversation with Stanford Health Policy’s Paul Wise for the March 8 event co-sponsored by the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research for faculty and students.

The World Health Organization budget for outbreaks and crisis response has been reduced by nearly 50 percent from 2012 to 2015. Some global health experts blame these cuts in part for its slow response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the ongoing Zika crisis in Brazil.

In Brazil, Zika has been linked to a spike in cases of microcephaly, a birth defect marked by small head size and underdeveloped brains. Brazil has confirmed more than 640 cases of microcephaly and is investigating an additional 4,200 suspected cases. Puerto Rico is now preparing for an expected outbreak there.

Summers said the mortality rate from the great flu pandemic was far greater than the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which killed some 11,300 people mostly in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. Some 50 million people died worldwide during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic.

‘I don’t want to minimize in any way the significance of Ebola, but there are things to worry about that are vastly larger,” said Summers, who gave the keynote address for the January unveiling of the National Academy of Medicine’s report on global health risks.

That report by the Commission on a Global Health Risks Framework for the Future found that, compared with other major threats to global security, the world has “grossly underinvested” in efforts to prevent and prepare for the spread of infectious diseases. The commissioners — some 250 independent experts in health, governance and research and development — estimate $60 billion in annualized expected losses from pandemics.

“Pandemics cause devastation to human lives and livelihoods much as do wars, financial crises and climate change,” the report said. “Pandemic prevention and response, therefore, should be treated as an essential tenet of both national and global security — not just a matter of health.”

Summers estimates that pandemic flu risk is in the same range of global climate change in terms of expected costs over the next century. Yet a potential pandemic is getting only 2 percent of the attention and resources that global climate change has today.

Image

Summers also chaired the Lancet Commission on Investing in Health, an independent group of 25 leading economists and global health experts from around the world. Their landmark report, Global Health 2035, provides a specific roadmap for this achieving “a grand convergence” in health within our lifetimes. Ahead of the U.N. General Assembly last fall, Summers led a joint declaration together with economists from 44 countries calling on world leaders to prioritize investments in health.

Wise, in the Department of Pediatrics at Stanford and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, asked Summers how one plans for pandemics when faced with so many failed governments and conflicts around the world.

“One of the central challenges that I worry about a lot in the deliberations of pandemic control is that many of the (regions) of greatest concern are characterized by chronic political instability, conflict and very weak governance,” said Wise, who for more than 30 years has been traveling to rural Guatemala to provide medical care to children there for his Children in Crisis project.

Summers said the world has been fortunate that there are so many brave and devoted medical workers who are trained to go into these conflict regions to try and contain outbreaks.

“But I think it would be disingenuous of me to say that you can solve these problems without in some way containing the failed state,” he said.

Wise then asked Summers what sort of advice he would give to the Stanford students who were trying to decide between a career in which one might use economics to make a fortune on Wall Street, or use economics for the greater good.

“I have always believed that you can count — and you can care,” Summers said. “There is nothing about counting and using numbers and analyzing the math that means you don’t care in a moral way.”

When a physician works with a patient and saves her life, he said, that has a profound and direct impact on both the patient and physician. But working on a vaccination program that has the potential of saving thousands of lives one day comes with delayed gratification.

“But the impact of making the world a better place and enabling people to survive and avoid grieving the loss of of a family member is as great — or greater,” he said.

Image

Infant deaths in Massachusetts for much of the 1800s accounted for more than 20 percent of all deaths, many due to diarrhea, cholera and other gastrointestinal disorders.

But from 1870 to 1930, the infant mortality rate plummeted from around 1 in 5 white infants to 1 in 16 for both Massachusetts and the entire United States.

Studies have shown that the dramatic decline was due to the impact of a clean-water system in Boston and other major U.S. cities at that turn of the 20^th century.

Now, new research by Stanford Health Policy’s Marcella Alsan indicates that effective sewage systems installed in Boston and surrounding municipalities complemented the water treatment plants and had a significant role in protecting the lives of children.

“We were motivated to investigate this because there was a watershed moment when infant mortality began to decline in the U.S. and Massachusetts that we wanted to understand,” said Alsan, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, and the country’s only physician who is a tropical disease expert and economist.

“In retrospect, the daunting challenges these engineers and medical professionals faced in designing, financing and executing such a massive project is incredible,” Alsan said in an interview. “It was really inspiring to read the history of how it all came together.”

She and co-author, Claudia Goldin of Harvard University’s Department of Economics, analyzed about 200,000 of infant death certificates in Boston and 54 other Massachusetts municipalities spanning the years 1880 to 1915.

The impetus behind the creation of the Metropolitan Sewerage District was complaints regarding the stench of sewage among Boston’s upper-class citizens.

“The first of a series of hearings was given by the sewerage commission at the City Hall on Friday night,” read a story in an 1875 edition of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. “From the statements made it would appear in various parts of the district including most of the finest streets, the stench is terrible, often causing much sickness.”

A joint engineering and medical commission was appointed in 1875 to devise a remedy and a massive drainage project got underway.

Alsan and Goldin found that an overwhelming number of deaths in the greater metropolitan area were due to gastrointestinal disorders, but that this improved significantly when sanitation canals became part of the overall water systems.

“We find robust evidence that the pure water and sewerage treatments pioneered by far-sighted public servants and engineers in the Commonwealth saved many babies,” they write in a working paper. “It must also have enhanced the quality of life for the citizens of the Greater Boston area even if it did not reduce the non-child death rate by much.”

Image

They acknowledge that the interpretation of their results is intuitive. But it’s an important one to promote because many developing countries today have yet to heed the lesson of combining safe drinking water and improved sanitation systems.

“Without proper disposal of fecal material, the benefits of clean water technologies for the health of children are likely limited,” they write. “Such a result has relevance for today’s low-and middle- income countries.”

The Millennium Development Goal Target 7.C — to halve by 2015 the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation —was only met for water, but not sanitation. Between 1990 and 2015, 2.6 billion people gained access to improved drinking water sources.

Yet despite that progress, one-third of the global population is still using unimproved sanitation facilities, including nearly 1 billion people who are still forced to defecate in the open. This often leads to cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, polio, and worm infestation.

Diarrhea is the third-largest killer of children under 5 in sub-Saharan Africa, and 44 million pregnant women are infected with worms each year due to open defecation, according to the United Nations. Every minute, 1.1 million liters of human excrement enters the Ganges River in India.

The problem of waste disposal likely will be compounded by rapid urbanization occurring in the developing world, said Alsan, and lack of sanitation and the practice of open defecation costs the world’s poorest countries $260 billion a year.

“We think our findings underscore how complementary these infrastructure investments are, and hope that holds lessons for the developing world,” said Alsan. “In all practicality, it’s very hard to ensure the municipal water supply is not contaminated if the sewage infrastructure is neglected.”

Working Paper: Watersheds in Infant Mortality

Non-smoking campaigns that tell teenage boys they will get lung cancer in 30 years if they don’t stop smoking just don’t work.

“But prevention programs that tell them that girls don’t like smokers make them go pale with fear,” says Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

Humphreys, an affiliated faculty member of Stanford Health Policy, told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this January that the better approach to public health campaigns are those tailored to the realities of the human brain.

One of those realities is that our brains have evolved to be vulnerable to addiction, especially if we live in the lower-income tiers of society. An understanding of our evolutionary vulnerability to drugs and alcohol can help us to design effective public policies, Humphreys told the Davos audience.

“Primate research indicates that there may be a political and economic dimension to this,” he said. “When lower primates form a hierarchy, those at the bottom undergo a change in their dopamine system. This makes them more likely to consume drugs in an addictive fashion.”

Addiction can happen to anyone at any level of society — the current opiate epidemic is a case in point — but if you look at wealthy societies, those who have less economic and educational resources are more prone to addiction.

“So as inequality worsens, we really have a risk of creating a disempowered underclass of people who are literally sedated by ever more available psychoactive substances.”

Humphreys is on the NeuroChoice team at the Stanford Neurosciences Institute who attended the forum to present their research into the neural basis of decision-making and how these impact public policy.

He says in this video that neuroscience reveals addictive drugs work on precisely the same brain systems that guide our survival decisions. This is compounded by industrial global capitalism, making the exposure to psychoactive substance nearly universal.

“These two combined realities — our evolutionary conserved vulnerability to addiction and the development of a production and transportation system that can deliver substances worldwide — is why one in six deaths on the planet among adults is attributable to psychoactive substance abuse,” says Humphreys.

Stanford researchers are going after the problem in two ways. First is to use neuroscience to unravel the mechanisms of addiction in the brain. Then, they work directly with public policymakers, such as those who regulate the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries, as well as those who oversee health-care and criminal justice systems.

“We communicate to our friends in the policy world what science has to teach about addiction and how you can use that information to do a better job at protecting people and promoting public health,” he said.

He said one of their key messages is that psychoactive substances are not ordinary commodities that should not be regulated.

“That’s probably true for broccoli, but it’s not true for psychoactive substances because they impair our brain’s ability to value things,” he said. And that is why public health policies must take into account the evolutionary-conserved circuits in the brain.

“The magnificent decision-making organ that evolution has bequeathed us is vulnerable to addiction, perhaps particularly if we live on the lower tiers of society. This creates a risk for humanity,” Humphreys said. “Karl Marx was worried that religion would become the opiate of the masses. But if we don’t use neuroscience to make better treatments and better policies regarding addiction, the opiate of the masses will be opiates.”

What is the best way to measure returns on investments in health care?

Does the World Health Organization’s approach help developing countries allocate their limited health-care resources wisely?

What are the economic implications of the global rise in non-communicable diseases?

These are just a few of the global challenges taken up by health economics experts at the third annual Global Health Economics Consortium Colloquium at the University of California, San Francisco.

At the core of the conference is the growing field of health economics, and why cost-effectiveness analysis is fast becoming the underpinning of successful health policies.

Not only is the field expanding, so is the collaboration among researchers and faculty at Stanford Health Policy, UCSF Global Health Sciences, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, co-sponsors of the Feb. 12 event.

“It’s been great to see the meeting evolve from a show-and-tell to a platform where we can have nuanced discussions about the challenges and controversies in the field,” said Dhruv Kazi, an assistant professor of medicine at UCSF who helped organize and moderate the event.

Some 180 health policy experts, researchers and speakers representing 11 universities, six non-profit organizations and five for-profit outfits attended the daylong conference on the UCSF Mission Bay campus.

“By building bridges between our universities, we create a space where thought-leaders and students alike can engage in discussions to challenge working assumptions and also spearhead innovate strategies and solutions,” said James Kahn, a professor of health policy and epidemiology at UCSF and the director of the consortium.

The Consortium — known as GHECon — was awarded a five-year cooperative agreement of up to $8 million by the CDC to conduct economic modeling of disease prevention in five areas: HIV, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis and school health.

Taking a break during the third annual Global Health Economics Consortium Colloquium at UCSF on Feb. 13, 2016. Photo by UCSF/Cindy Chew.

As global economies remain turbulent, Kazi said, governments and donors have become increasingly cost-sensitive and want to better understand the societal returns they are getting for their investments in health.

“That enhances the influence of our work, but also increases the scrutiny it receives, creating an opportunity for the community to have an honest discussion about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead,” he said. “And that is precisely the platform GHECon sees itself becoming.”

Some of the tough challenges consortium members are undertaking:

1. The World Health Organization recommends using per capita GDP as a benchmark for how much money countries should be willing to spend on health-care interventions. GHECon researchers have shown that this approach is problematic and does not always help countries allocate their limited health-care resources optimally.
2. Economic evaluations have typically only considered health-care costs, overlooking the lost income of patients or caregivers during hospital stays. GHECon researchers are working on ways to value this lost productivity in an effort to estimate the true cost of a disease and, conversely, the benefit of its alleviation. 
3. Cost-effectiveness evaluations traditionally are concerned with how efficiently health-care resources are utilized by asking questions like: How many lives can I save per million dollars invested? But society may care about other benefits that go beyond efficient use of resources, such as reducing disparities by helping the most vulnerable sections of society and alleviating poverty.

Image

Mark Sculpher, one of the leading health economists in the world, gave the keynote address about his efforts in the UK to use cost-effectiveness analysis to inform decisions at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

He said there are two big challenges today: defining cost-effectiveness thresholds that are meaningful, and determining how policymakers, donors and payers make decisions when there are multiple criteria and perspectives.

“The realities of decision-making inevitably involve a whole host of considerations,” said Sculpher, who is director of the Program on Economics Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment at the University of York. “Ultimately it’s about what is this measure of benefit that we want to maximize — and how do we invest in it.”

Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research at the Department of Medicine, presented his influential economic modeling research about the need for routine HIV screening.

“We determined that HIV screening is cost-effective in virtually all health-care settings,” Owens told the audience, noting that the findings became policy at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other national health policy organizations. It has become an example of how economic modeling can inform crucial policy decisions — and help save lives.

There were also robust panel discussions about the challenges of doing cost-effectiveness analysis in developing countries with limited resources; the difficult paths to universal health care; and how economics can help address disparities in health care and financial protection.

“The consortium is particularly valuable because it fosters collaborations among a broad group of global health experts,” Owens said.

Image