A new study by Stanford researchers indicates adding cardiac resynchronization therapy to an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) for patients with mild heart failure could increase the quality of life and may be cost-effective.

The study in the Aug. 25 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine finds that for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and a prolonged QRS duration, such devices would cost $61 700 per QALY gained. This result depends on a mortality reduction from CRT-D and is thus most applicable to patients with NYHA class II symptoms who have a QRS duration of 150 milliseconds or greater, or left bunle branch block.

The authors of the paper, “Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Among Patients With Mild Heart Failure,” include Stanford cardiologist Christopher Y. Woo and Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research’s Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an assistant professor of medicine, and Douglas K. Owens, a professor a medicine and director of the two Stanford health policy centers.

The full paper can be found on the AIM website.

In a Queen's School of Business (QSB) article, David Chan, an assistant professor of Medicine and CHP/PCOR core faculty member, discusses his new study on the cost of variation in medical practices.  The article shows that large variation in medical testing caused by "weak best practices" leads to greater healthcare spending.  According to Chan, there is significant variation in general medicine practices but little variation in specialty areas, and he found that "worker characteristics and formally learned differences have little role in explaining practice variation, at least within organizations.”  Decreasing practice variation could decrease healthcare spending in the U.S. substantially.

Video of A career in Economics...it's much more than you think

Marcella Alsan, an assistant professor of Medicine and CHP/PCOR core faculty member, shows how economics is a broader field than most people realize in this video produced by the American Economic Association (AEA).  Along with other top economists, she discusses the interdisciplinary nature of economics, specifically as it relates to global health.  Alsan states that "without understanding economic principals and economic forces, [there is] a real gaping hole in actually practicing medicine."  Understanding economics can help us to understand policy decisions and to tackle the broad problems of society.

Although the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act has made millions of low-income and rural Americans eligible for health insurance, many states don’t provide dental coverage for adults under their Medicaid programs.

Paying for dental insurance on the individual market or paying for dental services out of pocket is cost-prohibitive for Medicaid beneficiaries, many of whom are at or beneath the federal poverty level.

So many have turned to emergency rooms for such care.

More than 2 percent of all emergency department visits are now related to nontraumatic dental conditions, according to a study by researchers at Stanford University, the University of California-San Francisco, Truven Health Analytics and the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The researchers said Medicaid dental coverage could help reduce the need for many low-income Americans to visit emergency departments for dental conditions that may have otherwise been prevented with adequate access to basic dental care.

“It is likely that EDs will continue to provide care to individuals without adequate access to community-based dental care unless new dental service delivery models are developed to expand access in underserved areas, and unless more dental providers begin to accept Medicaid under the ACA,” the researchers wrote in their study, which was published today in Health Affairs.

Read full article

Foreign aid to the public health sectors of developing countries often appears to be allocated backwards: The global burden of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes or heart disease is enormous – yet they receive little health aid. 

By comparison, the global burden of HIV is much smaller, yet it receives more health aid than any other single disease.

So will a wholesale reversal in health aid priorities improve global health? The answer, according to a new study by Stanford researchers, is that if the goal is to maximize the health benefits from each donor dollar, health aid is actually allocated pretty well.

Still, reallocating foreign aid to step up the fight against malaria and TB could lead to greater overall health improvements in developing nations. And it could be done without spending more money, the researchers have found.

Eran Bendavid, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine and a core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, and three Stanford research assistants write in the July issue of Health Affairs that more health aid is going to disease categories with more cost-effective interventions.

"What we found, somewhat to our surprise, is that in nearly all countries, more aid was flowing to finance priorities with more cost-effective options,” Bendavid said in an interview. “That is partly because more aid was flowing to the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases such as HIV and malaria, and their management can be relatively inexpensive, even if the burden of these diseases is lower than that of non-communicable diseases.”

Bendavid, an infectious disease physician, added: “Conversely, even though the burden of non-communicable diseases is high and growing, addressing these chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease is, broadly, more costly than the unfinished infectious disease agenda.”

The authors also show that just because health aid is broadly allocated toward better cost-effectiveness does not mean that it cannot be better allocated.

The biggest gains would come from taking some of the foreign aid earmarked for HIV or maternal, newborn or child health, and putting it toward programs to treat malaria and tuberculosis, they write.

The Stanford research team reviewed the literature for cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting five disease categories: HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, non-communicable disease and maternal, newborn and child health.

What they found was that aid from wealthy nations to developing ones might be allocated efficiently, but that the money is not always spent in the best interest of curbing the communicable diseases that would improve the overall health of a nation.

It is crucial, therefore, to further study the consequences of realignment of donor funds.

Public health aid is critical to most developing countries. Development assistance from high-income countries to public health sectors of low- and middle-income countries amounts to nearly 40 percent of public health spending in countries with a per capita GDP of less than $2,000.

The researchers focused on 20 countries that received the greatest total amount of aid between 2008 and 2011, a period of historically unprecedented growth in health aid. Development assistance has since flattened, however, so the authors believe it’s increasingly important to consider best value when investing limited resources.

The 20 countries studied ­– from Afghanistan to Zambia – received $58 billion out of the total $103.2 billion in recorded health aid disbursements to 170 countries between 2001 and 2011.

“Over the period of 2001-2011, a greater amount of disbursements flowed to HIV programs than any other disease category,” the authors write. “On average, interventions addressing malaria and had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates that malaria interventions could yield greater health improvements from each dollar compared with the interventions having a higher ICER.”

The authors analyzed the data and determined that the alignment improves if up to 61 percent of HIV aid is reallocated for TB control and up to 80 percent is reallocated for malaria control.

“Our evidence suggests that the greatest improvements in the efficiency of global health dollars could result from reallocating funds to malaria and TB control programs,” the authors write.

“This study shows, for the first time, that the current allocation of health aid is generally aligned with the cost-effectiveness of targeted interventions. Contrary to common views that advocate for reprioritization toward non-communicable diseases, our data suggest that the alignment could best be improved by focusing on malaria and TB, especially where addressing those diseases is highly cost effective.”

The other authors of the study are Andrew Duong and Gillian Raikes, both research assistants in the Program of Human Biology; and Charlotte Sagan, a RA in the School of Medicine.

Rates of obesity in the United States remain extremely high. New statistics show that nearly two-thirds of adults are at an unhealthy weight and that – for the first time ever – obese Americans now outnumber those who are merely overweight.

Two Stanford public health law experts say one of biggest culprits of the obesity epidemic – on top of fast foods and our sedentary lifestyle – are sugary drinks.

And they believe the sweet spot for public health law in curbing the adverse effects of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) lies in the strategic use of measures such as higher SSB taxes, limits on advertisements targeting kids, and restrictions on soft drinks and sugar-sweetened teas and sports drinks in government institutions, such as public schools.

“It’s always possible to get more and better evidence about the effectiveness of public health laws,” says David Studdert, a professor of medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine, professor at the Stanford Law School and core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research.

Image

“But enough is already known about the promise of some legal interventions to curb SSB consumption – significant tax hikes and advertising restrictions are two good examples – to be fairly confident that they would make a difference.”

Studdert is the lead author of a review paper published July 7 in PLoS Medicine, entitled, “Searching for Public Health Law’s Sweet Spot: The Regulation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages.”

Studdert and senior author Michelle Mello, professor of law and professor of health research and policy at the School of Medicine, and co-author Jordan Flanders, a former Stanford Law School student, argue that sugary drinks are a substantial, yet preventable contributor to the global burden of obesity and associated health conditions.

A new study published June 29 in the American Heart Association journal Circulation linked the consumption of sugary drinks to an estimated 184,000 adult deaths each year, with more than 25,000 of those Americans. The study, conducted by researchers from Tufts University, found that the beverages are responsible for an estimated 133,000 of those deaths from diabetes, 45,000 from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 from cancer.

While Americans’ consumption of sugary drinks has plateaued, according to the Tufts study, about three-fourths of the deaths due to SSBs are now in developing countries. Mexico leads with 24,000 total deaths. The United States still ranks fourth, however, just behind South Africa and Morocco.

The Stanford researchers say the evidence shows that sugary drinks are contributors to the global obesity epidemic, but the appropriate reach of regulation to curtail SSB consumptions remains highly contested.

The main regulatory approaches to SSBs are higher taxes, restrictions on the availability of the sugar-sweetened drinks in schools, restrictions on advertising and marketing, labeling requirements and government procurement and benefits standards.

Image

“Finding public health law’s sweet spot requires regulatory approaches that are capable both of achieving measurable improvements to public health and of winning victories in courts of law and public opinion,” the researchers write.

Over the last decade, many national, state, and local governments have introduced laws aimed at curbing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), especially by children. The main regulatory approaches have been taxes, restrictions on the availability of SSBs in schools, calls for controls on advertising and marketing, labeling requirements, and government procurement and benefits standards.

But efforts to regulate the drinks often encounter stiff opposition, including claims that the laws are inequitable, do not achieve their goals, and have negative economic effects.

New York City’s attempt to ban the sale of jumbo-sized sugary drinks sold in city restaurants, theaters and food carts triggered international headlines and a firestorm of opposition. The soft drink industry embarked on a multimillion-dollar campaign to block the proposal championed by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The proposal died last year when the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the city’s Board of Health had “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority.”

Taxes on SSBs, the most commonly adopted measure, vary widely, the authors write. A few countries, most notably several South Pacific island nations, where obesity rates are among the highest in the world, have introduced very high taxes on sugary drinks.

But most sugar-sweetened beverage taxes add between 5 and 9 cents per liter. This is well short of the level that experts argue is needed to significantly affect consumption and weight outcomes: a sales tax of at least 20 percent of the container’s price or a specific excise tax of 1 cent per ounce.

“In the United States, there have been many government proposals to introduce or raise taxes – most unsuccessful,” the authors write. “The beverage industry has invested heavily in public relations firms and `grassroots’ organizations to oppose the initiatives.”

Image

Berkeley, Calif., recently became the first U.S. city to pass an SSB tax, a penny-per-ounce excise on soda distributors, but a similar ballot measure in nearby San Francisco failed. At least 22 states have proposed SSB taxes since 2010, but only one state, Washington, passed a measure at the level recommended by economists – and it was repealed the following year in a voter referendum.

Yet U.S. childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than one-third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese.

“There is broad consensus in the public health community that reducing the influence of advertising is a critical step in addressing the spread of childhood obesity,” the authors say.

The United States and Canada have sought to regulate advertisers through a soft approach — mainly via voluntary guidelines and pressure to self-regulate, the authors write.

“These appear to have had only a modest impact on marketing practices,” they said. “U.S. regulators face considerable legal barriers in going further, including courts’ increasingly expansive interpretations of the scope of protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. Unless judicial currents shift, it will remain extremely difficult to impose restrictions on SSB advertising.”

Mello said low- and middle-income countries should anticipate that SSB companies will increasingly target them as promising markets, and that those developing countries should start crafting their regulatory responses now.

“Our experience with tobacco control teaches us that lower- and middle-income countries need to become wary when product regulation in the U.S. tightens,” Mello said. “Like squeezing a balloon, it pushes companies to intensify their marketing efforts overseas, and our public health problems get exported."

And, the authors note, while policy nudges have become fashionable, “there are dangers in treading too lightly.” “Strategies such as calorie labels, portion caps, and small beverage taxes preserve consumer freedom but are typically too modest to affect consumer behavior – and such modesty can be recast as arbitrariness. Industry opposition will come whether the intervention is modest or aggressive but should be easier to combat if officials can show their policy is effective,” they wrote.

“One somewhat surprising message that comes from reviewing how courts have handled challenges to SSB laws is that regulators can run greater risks of having their laws struck down if they are too timid,” Studdert said.

“Courts weigh effectiveness, and modest attempts to change behavior are often ineffective,” he said. “So one piece of advice regulators in this area should consider is to ‘go big or go home’.”

Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of health research and policy at the Stanford School of Medicine, is this year’s recipient of the Ernst-Meyer Prize, which recognizes original research about risk and health insurance economics.

Polyakova, who wrote her thesis, “Regulation of Public Health Insurance,” while working on her Ph.D. in economics at MIT, was given the award by The Geneva Association, an international insurance economics think tank based in Switzerland.

Image

Courbage said the topic not only had considerable academic interest, but also was “an important public policy issue in both the United States and Europe.

“This work makes extremely useful insights about an important area of public policy that has yet to get the attention it needs: the interaction of regulation with important demand and supply-side features of private insurance markets.”

Polyakova said she was honored to receive the award and thanked her thesis committee for their “unbounded support” of her work.

“I am especially grateful to Amy Finkelstein for inspiring my interest in social insurance in general, and health insurance, in particular,” she said. “I hope to continue my work in this area."

A summary of Polyakova’s thesis will be published in the July 2015 issue of The Geneva Association’s Insurance Economics newsletter.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, highlights in a NIH blog post the research of CHP/PCOR's David Chan, who is exploring the impact of electronic health record reminders on the quality of primary care. 

Chan, an assistant professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine and a core faculty member at CHP/PCOR, received an NIH Early Independence Award last year for his work in the area of electronic health records.

Collins writes in his blog post: 

Is 5 too few and 40 too many? That’s one of many questions that researcher David Chan is asking about the clinical reminders embedded into those electronic health record (EHR) systems increasingly used at your doctor’s office or local hospital. Electronic reminders, which are similar to the popups that appear when installing software on your computer, flag items for healthcare professionals to consider when they are seeing patients. Depending on the type of reminder used in the EHR—and there are many types—these timely messages may range from a simple prompt to write a prescription to complex recommendations for follow-up testing and specialist referrals.

You can read the entire blog post here.