Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

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.

ghecon attendees 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 addresses GHECon 2016. Photo by UCSF/Cindy Chew

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
Speakers and panelists at the third annual GHECon colloquium at UCSF, Feb. 12, 2016. Photo by UCSF/Cindy Chew

 

Hero Image
5q2a0821
Stanford Health Policy's Douglas K. Owens presents his influential economic modeling research about the need for routine HIV screening at the third annual Global Health Economics Consortium Colloquium at UCSF, Feb. 12, 2016. | UCSF/Cindy Chew
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

This season, “Downton Abbey's” plot line has health policy wonks on the edge of their seats: a heated debate about hospital consolidation that closely parallels what’s going on in the U.S. health care system today.

If you’re not a Downton fan, here’s a quick plot recap by Kaiser Health News reporter Jenny Gold: It’s 1925 for the lords and ladies at Downton Abbey. Think flapper dresses, cocktail parties and women’s rights. And a big hospital in the nearby city of York is making a play to take over the Downton Cottage Hospital next to the posh estate.

As Maggie Smith’s character, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, sees it, “The Royal Yorkshire county hospital wants to take over our little hospital, which is outrageous!”

Stanford Health Policy’s Kathy McDonald — an unabashed fan of the popular PBS period piece — says things haven’t changed that much today. There has been an uptick in hospital consolidations since 2010, with about 100 taking place each year, she says.

You can listen to McDonald’s interview with Gold, who took the Downton debate to the American Public Media radio show, “Marketplace.”

Image
screen shot 2016 02 16 at 1 55 01 pm

 

Hero Image
dowager countess pbs
PBS
All News button
1
-

The Global Development and Poverty Initiative (GDP) seminar series returns with a reprise of its most popular seminar last year. Join us for a stimulating discussion on the opportunities, obstacles, and unforeseen events encountered while conducting field research in the developing world.

The panelists will share stories of challenges and successes from their own experiences and will offer insights on conducting effective research in the field.

Read more about last year's seminar here.

Image
screen shot 2016 02 05 at 2 31 21 pm

This seminar is located in the Knight Management Center's Class of 1968 Building. Click Here for a map.

Encina Commons, Room 102,
615 Crothers Way,
Stanford, CA 94305-6019

(650) 723-0984 (650) 723-1919
0
Professor, Medicine
Professor, Health Policy
Senior Fellow, by courtesy, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
eran_bendavid MD, MS

My academic focus is on global health, health policy, infectious diseases, environmental changes, and population health. Our research primarily addresses how health policies and environmental changes affect health outcomes worldwide, with a special emphasis on population living in impoverished conditions.

Our recent publications in journals like Nature, Lancet, and JAMA Pediatrics include studies on the impact of tropical cyclones on population health and the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in children. These works are part of my broader effort to understand the health consequences of environmental and policy changes.

Collaborating with trainees and leading academics in global health, our group's research interests also involve analyzing the relationship between health aid policies and their effects on child health and family planning in sub-Saharan Africa. My research typically aims to inform policy decisions and deepen the understanding of complex health dynamics.

Current projects focus on the health and social effects of pollution and natural hazards, as well as the extended implications of war on health, particularly among children and women.

Specific projects we have ongoing include:

  • What do global warming and demographic shifts imply for the population exposure to extreme heat and extreme cold events?

  • What are the implications of tropical cyclones (hurricanes) on delivery of basic health services such as vaccinations in low-income contexts?

  • What effect do malaria control programs have on child mortality?

  • What is the evidence that foreign aid for health is good diplomacy?

  • How can we compare health inequalities across countries? Is health in the U.S. uniquely unequal? 

     

CV
Date Label
Eran Bendavid Assistant Professor, Medicine Panelist
Beatriz Magaloni Associate Professor, Political Science and Senior Fellow, FSI Panelist
Scott Rozelle Senior Fellow, FSI Panelist
Katherine Casey Assistant Professor, Political Economy Moderator
Panel Discussions
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

 

Grant Miller, associate professor of medicine and a Stanford Health Policy core faculty member and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, has been working to help residents of a state in India access the micronutrients that they are lacking. The work, which involves a fortified rice, includes several Indian ministries, nonprofit organizations, and faculty from across the Stanford campus to assess and support the collaborative effort.

In this video, Miller says Stanford's collaborative community and institutes help projects like his in the southeastern India state of Tamil Nadu succeed. "Micronutrient deficiency rates in Tamil Nadu are extremely high," he says. "We're working with the government of Tamil Nadu to see if it's possible to introduce fortification into what's called the public distribution system — which distributes rice at no cost to all residents of Tamil Nadu."

And, Miller says, he would not be able to carry out that research without the teamwork generated here on campus.

 

 

Hero Image
grant miller team approach
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The prestigious panel of medical experts who provoked a nationwide debate when it suggested fewer mammograms is standing by its recommendation that women 50 and older only get the screening every other year.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an update of its 2009 guidelines on Tuesday, noting that women in their 40s with an average risk of breast cancer should discuss mammography with their clinicians and make individual decisions about whether to have the screening.

When the panel made the panel first made the recommendation, it provoked an outcry from some medical associations and cancer-awareness advocates who feared the advice would lead some women to delay having mammograms and put them at greater risk of death.

“In 2015, contentious discussions about breast cancer screening and prevention continued, with physicians, advocates, lawmakers, and scientists all lending their voices to the debate,” the Task Force said in an editorial on its website.

“Many of these stakeholders focused on the need for women to be able to make more informed health care choices about when to start screening without having to worry about the cost of an insurance copayment,” said the panel of experts, including Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research.

“The role of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in these discussions has remained unchanged: to empower women with the best scientific data about the benefits and harms associated with breast cancer screening, so they can make an informed decision with their doctor.”

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute. In 2015, an estimated 232,000 women were diagnosed with the disease and 40,000 women died. It is most frequently diagnosed among women aged 55 to 64 years, and the median age of death from breast cancer is 68 years.

The task force determined that while screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 may reduce the risk for breast cancer death, the number of deaths averted is smaller than that in older women and the number of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies is larger.

The balance of benefits and harms is likely to improve as women move from their early to late 40s, the task force said.

“In addition to false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies, all women undergoing regular screening mammography are at risk for the diagnosis and treatment of noninvasive and invasive breast cancer that would otherwise not have become a threat to their health, or even apparent, during their lifetime,” the Task Force said. “Beginning mammography screening at a younger age and screening more frequently may increase the risk for over-diagnosis and subsequent overtreatment.”

The independent panel of medical experts from around the nation said that women with a parent, sibling, or child with breast cancer are at higher risk for breast cancer and thus may benefit more than average-risk women from beginning screening in their 40s.

Not everyone is pleased with the recommendations.

Florida Congresswoman and chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, issued a statement that suggested the Task Force recommendations could put younger women at risk because their insurance companies may stop paying for their screenings.

“These guidelines indicate that screening for women under 50 is less beneficial in detecting breast cancer than for older women,” said Wasserman Schultz, herself a breast-cancer survivor. “However, because insurance companies often use these guidelines to determine coverage for these critical life-saving screenings, these new recommendations could potentially bar millions of women from getting coverage for screenings they need.”

Judy Salerno, president and CEO of the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity, said she worries the recommendation could target African-American women in particular.

“A lack of coverage would be most harshly felt in high-risk and underserved populations,” Salerno said. “African-American women, for example, are often diagnosed at younger ages with aggressive forms of breast cancer – and die of breast cancer at rates over 40 percent higher than white women. Screening at younger ages is a critical tool for these women.”

Members of the Task Force, however, emphasized that it was their role to evaluate scientific evidence and not make insurance coverage decisions.

“The USPSTF acknowledges the important role that insurance coverage plays in access to and use of preventive services,” the Task Force said in its editorial. “Coverage decisions are the domain of payers, regulators and legislators. Whatever we may believe about the importance of coverage in shared decision-making about mammography, we cannot exaggerate our interpretation of the science to ensure coverage for a service. This would lead to confusion regarding the state of science versus the politics of coverage.”

 

Hero Image
mammogram
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 40 and 75 take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug to help prevent heart attacks and strokes if they are at risk of cardiovascular disease.

One in three Americans die of heart attacks or strokes. And those with no signs or symptoms, as well as no past history of cardiovascular disease, can still be at risk.

The independent panel of medical experts from around the nation said in a news release that statins could help those who have a risk factor for cardiovascular disease — such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, diabetes or those who smoke — and have at least a 7.5 percent risk of having a cardiovascular event in the next 10 years.

The task force also called for more research on the use of prescribing statins for children and adolescents who are at risk of heart disease.

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have been recommending statins in adults for several years. The task force is now making a similar recommendation for primary prevention based on the latest clinical trials and research.

“The task force looked carefully at current data to identify who can benefit the most from taking statins,” said task force chair Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH, who is also chair of the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Mount Sinai Health System.

“People with no signs, symptoms, or history of cardiovascular disease can still be at risk of heart attack or stroke,” said task force member Douglas K. Owens, MD, a Stanford professor of medicine and director of the Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research at Stanford Health Policy.

“Fortunately, for certain people at increased risk, statins can be very effective at preventing these events,” said Owens, who emphasizes that adults who fall into those risk and age groups must first consult with their physicians.

The task force said all adults could reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease by not smoking, eating a healthy diet, engaging in physical activity and limiting alcohol use. Managing high blood pressure and high cholesterol and taking aspirin when indicated can also help prevent heart attacks and strokes.

Based on the current evidence, the task force said, it is not yet clear whether taking statins is beneficial for people who are older than 75. But they did find the effectiveness of statins is the same for both men and women.

This is the first time the task force has changed its fundamental approach since 2008, when it recommended screening for abnormal amount of lipids in the blood. While screening remains key, most adults are now routinely screened as part of an overall cardiovascular risk assessment.

Therefore, the task force found the more relevant clinical question is no longer whom to screen for elevated cholesterol, but rather whom to treat with preventive medication once increased cardiovascular risk has been identified in an individual.

The Preventive Services Task Force also announced that there is not enough data and evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms in screening for high cholesterol in children and adolescents up to age 20.

While some experts have recommended lipid screening in children and teens, the task force found that the evidence shows it’s difficult to predict which children who have high cholesterol will continue to have it as they age.

“There is currently not enough research to determine whether screening all average-risk children and adolescents without symptoms leads to better cardiovascular health in adulthood.” said Task Force Vice Chair David C. Grossman, MD, MPH. “In addition, the potential harms of long-term use of cholesterol-lowering medication by children and adolescents are not yet understood.”

The public can review the findings and comment on the task force website.

Other articles on the recommendation include:

The Associated Press

MedPage Today

Reuters

HealthDay

 

 

Hero Image
statin tablets istock unlimited
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Most prescriptions for opioid painkillers are made by the broad swath of U.S. general practitioners, not by a limited group of specialists, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

This finding contrasts with previous studies by others that indicated the U.S. opioid epidemic is stoked by a small population of prolific prescribers operating out of corrupt “pill mills.”

The study, which examined Medicare prescription drug claims data for 2013, appears in a research letter published today in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“The bulk of opioid prescriptions are distributed by the large population of general practitioners,” said lead author Jonathan Chen, a Stanford Health Policy VA Medical Informatics Fellow.

The researchers found that the top 10 percent of opioid prescribers account for 57 percent of opioid prescriptions. This prescribing pattern is comparable to that found in the Medicare data for prescribers of all drugs: The top 10 percent of all drug prescribers account for 63 percent of all drug prescriptions.

“These findings indicate law enforcement efforts to shut down pill-mill prescribers are insufficient to address the widespread overprescribing of opioids,” Chen said. “Efforts to curtail national opioid overprescribing must address a broad swath of prescribers to be effective.”

Read More at Stanford News Center

More coverage here:

STAT News Service

Kaiser Health News

 

Hero Image
prescriptionbottles apstock 1024x576
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

This 2016 newsletter from the Stanford Department of Medicine is neither a yearbook of our recent accomplishments nor an annual report replete with facts and figures. It’s most like an anthology, giving readers glimpses of some recent progress we’ve made as we addressed Stanford Medicine’s tripartite mission: to teach our students and trainees, to do research, and to care for our patients. As we move toward the future, it’s important to reflect on the past, which created the culture of the Stanford Department of Medicine. The report also features Stanford Health Policy's Marcella Alsan's work about the impact of the tsetse fly on African economies.

In this video, Robert Harrington, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine, gives an overview of the department's vision for the future, as well as highlighting the department's four strategic priorities.

 

 

See the multimedia report here.

Hero Image
annual report
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The cold and flu season is upon us — and with that comes the potential overuse of antibiotics. All too often, physicians prescribe antibiotics for viral infections, which typically is ineffectual and can even be dangerous for elderly Medicare patients.

An estimated 2 million Americans are infected with drug-resistant organisms each year, resulting in 23,000 deaths and more than $20 billion in excess costs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Excessive antibiotic use in cold and flu season is not only costly, but it also contributes to antibiotic resistance, writes Stanford Health Policy's Marcella Alsan and her co-authors in a study published in the December edition of Medical Care. The study’s objective was to develop an index of excessive antibiotic use in cold and flu season and determine its correlation with other indicators of clinically appropriate or inappropriate prescribing.

Alsan and senior author, Dartmouth economist Jonathan Skinner, concluded that flu-related antibiotic use was correlated with prescribing high-risk medications to the elderly.

Read More

 

Hero Image
addiction 71573 1280
All News button
1
Subscribe to The Americas