Beyond nudges

Beyond Nudges — When Improving Health Calls for Greater Assertiveness

From NEJM

And a book:

Barbarians at a drug firm

After Enron, Valeant Pharmaceuticals is one of the largest corruption scandals of Wall Street. If you want to know the details, you just have to connect Netflix. In episode 3 of the documentary series Dirty Money, you'll  find The Drug Short episode. You'll understand what happens when barbarians take unethical decisions, although they were legal. Meanwhile, the regulator was on vacation in the US.
Highly recommended.

PS. If you don't have Netflix and you are interested on how to proceed like a Valeant executive in the energy sector, then you have to watch "Enron: the smartest guys in the room".

Incentives and behavior

THE MORAL ECONOMY
WHY GOOD INCENTIVES ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GOOD CITIZENS

For those interested in pay for performance, the book by Samuel Bowles will open their minds to new perspectives. The rationale behind the Homo economicus needs to be adjusted to ethical and altruistic motives, professionalism in other words. This explanation of the prisoner's dilemma is helpful.

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, defecting rather than cooperating with one’s partner maximizes a player’s payoff, irrespective of what the other player does. Defecting in this game is what game theorists call a dominant strategy, and the game is extremely simple; it does not take a game theorist to figure this out. So, assuming that people care only about their own payoffs, we would predict that defection would be universal.

But when the game is played with real people, something like half of players typically cooperate rather than defect. Most subjects say that they prefer the mutual cooperation outcome over the higher material payoff they would get by defecting on a cooperator, and they are willing to take a chance that the other player feels the same way (and is willing to take the same chance.

When players defect, it is often not because they are tempted by the higher payoff that they would get, but because they know that the other player might defect, and they hate the idea that their own cooperation would be exploited by the other. We know this from what happens when the Prisoner’s Dilemma is not played simultaneously, as is standard, meaning that each person decides what to do not knowing what the other will do, but instead is played sequentially (one person chosen randomly moves first). In the sequential game, the second mover usually reciprocates the first player’s move, cooperating if the first has done so, and defecting otherwise. Keep in mind the fact that avoiding being a chump appears to be the motive here, not the prospect of a higher payoff. 

Stanton at Galeria Barnadas

The corporatization of medicine

Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices

From Annals of Internal Medicine:

The current environment is accelerating the disappearance of independent practices and fueling the corporatization of medicine. Many of the largest practices have already been acquired by a hospital, insurer, or private equity firm. No peer-reviewed evidence examines the effect of private equity acquisitions on the quality and cost of patient care; physician professionalism; or the experience of patients, physicians, or staff; little evidence examines the effect of hospital or insurer acquisitions.

Technology driven disruption in health insurance

Digital is reshaping US health insurance—winners are moving fast

From McKinsey

Digital has begun to reshape health insurance markets. Payers in the United States have been slow to digitize and are still behind other industries in their use of artificial intelligence and automation, as well as in customer satisfaction. They’re now starting to catch up. Both incumbents and disruptors are making substantial and growing investments in digital programs.

The bill of new drugs

The Contribution Of New Product Entry Versus Existing Product Inflation In The Rising Costs Of Drugs

In the US there is a huge concern over drug prices. The question is what's driving expenditure growth, new product entry or inflation? In new product entry we have two categories, generic drugs and innovations (in specialty drugs). The answer appears in the latest issue of Health Affairs.

In this retrospective study of pharmaceutical pricing data for 2005–16, we found that increases in the costs of specialty and generic drugs were driven by the entry of new drug products, but rising costs of brand-name drugs were largely due to inflation in existing medication prices.

The costs of oral and injectable brand-name drugs increased annually by 9.2 percent and 15.1 percent, respectively, largely driven by existing drugs. For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, with 71.1 percent and 52.4 percent of these increases attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generics increased by 4.4 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively, driven by new drug entry. The rising costs of generic and specialty drugs were mostly driven by new
product entry.

We would need similar data for our country. Nobody knows anything, prices are confidential.

PS. On drug pricing scams.

Count Basie and the beginning of swing

Multisided platforms as monopolists

MODERN MONOPOLIES: What It Takes to Dominate the 21st-Century Economy

Platform business is the hottest topic in organizational economics. Linear business  considered as a traditional value chain is exactly the opposite of the economics of platforms. Two years ago I explained in several posts the emergence of this model. In 2004 Tirole and Rochet defined the network externalities that emerged from multisided platforms. Nowadays it is the hottest topic and a new book explains the consequences.

The secret to tech companies’ success lies not in the tech, but in it’s business model. A platform, by definition, creates value by facilitating an exchange between two or more interdependent groups. So, rather than making things, they simply connect people. The book helps you understand what made these companies so successful, how to tell a good platform from the bad, and how you could build one too

And by definition, platforms are the new modern monopolies different from the ones we have known.

Although monopolies get a bad rap, they’re not always a bad thing. In the short term, modern monopolies are often a boon to consumers. They bring valuable new inventions to market, and, in the case of platforms, they build new communities and markets that would not exist otherwise. The downside comes much later, as the monopolist ages and starts to crowd out potential new competitors without delivering new value.

Today Amazon is the most valuable company in the world. That's it. Let's wait for the downside. It may be too late to react. Regulators should read today Jean Tirole and apply his recommendations.

PS. Go to the conclusion and you'll find this statement:

So where should you be looking to next? Well, there are a few industries where the three factors are starting to converge
The first industry is health care, which we’ve touched on at several points in this book. Here you have platforms connecting doctors and patients in new ways, like Doctor on Demand, Teladoc, and ZocDoc. However, these platforms are just going after the low-hanging fruit. There’s still a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiency in the healthcare sector, especially in the United States. And wherever there’s waste and inefficiency, there’s a platform opportunity. For instance, although they’re relatively popular with casual consumers, wearable health devices are just starting to make their way into formal health care. These devices offer tremendous potential for improving patient wellness. But in order for them to be useful, a platform will need to build a unified network of doctors and patients. Despite the recent entrance of Silicon Valley heavyweights Apple and Google, this market is still wide open.

PS. Four additional useful books on the same topic:

Evans and Schmalensee are the best authors on this subject and this is the recommended book for economists.

A historical perspective on platforms.

A book that connects platforms with other topics of interest.

A management perspective on platforms.

Allocating reseach funds by lottery

Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions

Research funding needs reform. In PLOS Biology, you'll find a controversial proposal: lotterys.

As fewer grants are funded, the value of the science that researchers forgo while preparing proposals can approach or exceed the value of the science that the funding program supports. As a result, much of the scientific impact of the funding program is squandered.

Unfortunately, increased waste and reduced efficiency is inevitable in a grant proposal competition when the number of awards is small. How can scarce funds be allocated efficiently, then?

As one alternative, we show that a partial lottery that selects proposals for funding randomly from among those that pass a qualifying standard can restore lost efficiency by reducing investigators' incentives to invest heavily in preparing proposals.

My impression is that we are not prepared to accept such a mechanism for allocating resources. In a world that claims for transparency, research funding allocated by the chance of winning a lottery seems like a joke. (Fortunately the authors of the article didn't received any fund!)

Times of resistance

When All Else Fails: THE ETHICS OF RESISTANCE TO STATE INJUSTICE

The economist Albert O. Hirschman famously argued that citizens of democracies have only three possible responses to injustice or wrongdoing by their governments: we may leave, complain, or comply. But in When All Else Fails, Jason Brennan argues that there is a fourth option. When governments violate our rights, we may resist. We may even have a moral duty to do so.
For centuries, almost everyone has believed that we must allow the government and its representatives to act without interference, no matter how they behave. We may complain, protest, sue, or vote officials out, but we can’t fight back. But Brennan makes the case that we have no duty to allow the state or its agents to commit injustice. We have every right to react with acts of “uncivil disobedience.” We may resist arrest for violation of unjust laws. We may disobey orders, sabotage government property, or reveal classified information. We may deceive ignorant, irrational, or malicious voters. We may even use force in self-defense or to defend others.
The result is a provocative challenge to long-held beliefs about how citizens may respond when government officials behave unjustly or abuse their power.

Food for thought.

Docuncert Txarango 

Welfare State apocalypsis

WILL POPULATION AGEING SPELL THE END OF THE WELFARE STATE?

Too many people argue over the end of the welfare state. There are reasons for concern, but apocalyptic views are unnecessary. A new book reviews the ageing process and the implications for the welfare state. The message is a balanced perspective:

Upon closer inspection, available evidence suggests that caring for a growing older population may not be so costly to finance and that older people provide significant economic and societal benefits, especially when healthy and active:
– Population ageing has a modest and very gradual effect on health expenditure forecasts, compared
to traditional cost drivers such as price growth and technological innovation.
– Demand for long-term care is expected to increase substantially due to population ageing but it is coming from a low baseline currently. However, projected increases in long-term care spending do not account for the economic cost of informal long-term care, as this is not captured in international statistics (nor fully understood).
– Many older people continue to provide paid or unpaid work beyond official retirement age and continue to make a positive economic and societal contribution. The value of unpaid work provided by older people is considerable but not regularly quantified.
– While in Europe older people's consumption is mainly financed by public transfers, many older people pay for (part of) their consumption from private sources, including from incomes from their own continued work or from accumulated assets.
– Accumulation of asset wealth also benefits the economy indirectly through its contribution to productivity growth; health is a key predictor of asset accumulation.
– Older people, even if not in paid employment, continue to pay consumption and other non-labour-related taxes, and thus contribute to public-sector revenues.

 Mostly, I agree with this view. The retirement funding issue is the largest challenge for the welfare state and our politicians are playing with fire.

At a glance

Health at a Glance: Europe 2018

Every two years OECD publishes this report for the European Union on the state of health. The new one has an interesting thematic chapter on mental health. It says:

According to the latest IHME estimates, more than one in six people across EU countries (17.3%) had a mental health problem in 2016  – that is, nearly 84 million people.
The most common mental disorder across EU countries is anxiety disorder, with an estimated 25 million people (or 5.4% of the population) living with anxiety disorders, followed by depressive disorders, which affect over 21 million people (or 4.5% of the
population).An estimated 11 million people across EU countries (2.4%) have drug and alcohol use disorders. Severe mental illnesses such as bipolar disorders affect almost 5 million people (1.0% of the population), while schizophrenic disorders affect another estimated 1.5 million people (0.3%).

And the second thematic chapter is about health expenditure: Strategies to reduce wasteful spending: Turning the lens to hospitals and pharmaceuticals. It says:

For hospitals, reducing or eliminating unnecessary investigations and procedures, many of which expose patients to unnecessary risks without the prospect of clinical benefit, is an obvious target for direct intervention. Expanding the use of day surgery can also be instigated at hospital level. However minimising avoidable admissions, particularly for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, reducing unnecessary length of stay, and improving discharge processes require broader perspectives. Enhanced primary care services, expanded postacute care facilities, post-discharge care coordination, and in home care services all require health system reforms that cannot be initiated by hospitals  alone.

For pharmaceuticals, creating and supporting competitive markets and promoting the uptake of generics and biosimilars can generate substantial savings. That said, reducing waste does not necessarily mean spending less; it may equally be achieved by gaining better value for money from existing expenditure. Both supply and demand side levers offer scope for better value. Using health technology assessment to inform selection, pricing and procurement of new medicines facilitates an understanding of the true opportunity costs of therapies and helps avoid the displacement of high value interventions with ones of lesser value.

This is not new. We have already heard the same for years. Therefore, current inertia is supported by strong incentives that prevent change (either in policy or management). This is the key challenge.

Broken markets create broken politics

THE MYTH OF CAPITALISM
Monopolies and the Death of Competition

These are some selected key messages from the book:

Capitalism without competition is not capitalism.

Competition matters because it prevents unjust inequality, rather than the transfer of wealth from consumer or supplier to the monopolist. If there is no competition, consumers and workers have less freedom to choose. Competition creates clear price signals in markets, driving supply and demand. It promotes efficiency. Competition creates more choices, more innovation, economic development and growth, and a stronger democracy by dispersing economic power. It promotes individual initiative and freedom. Competition is the essence of capitalism, yet it is dying.

Competition is the basis for evolution. An absence of competition means an absence of evolution, a failure to adapt to new conditions. It threatens our survival. There are fewer winners and many losers when there is less competition. Rising market power by dominant firms has created less competition, lower investment in the real economy, lower productivity, less economic dynamism with fewer startups, higher prices for dominant firms, lower wages and more wealth inequality. The evidence from economic studies is pouring in like a flood.

As you may imagine, what the authors do is precisely to show the evidence of the monopolist and oligopolist activities in the US markets. Our close markets are in the same situation and antitrust authorities are failing to preserve competition. Unfortunately, recent legislation has not helped to reverse the trend. Higly recommendable book.

The author 6 years ago at TV3:

Ill-prepared for the arrival of new medicines

Pharmaceutical Innovation and Access to Medicines

While in the last years the number of new drugs in the market has been limited, this trend has changed and countries may expect larger bills in the next future. The OECD report explains the main challenges of pharmaceutical innovation and says:

Despite a slowdown in growth in the 2000s, pharmaceutical spending has nevertheless increased sharply in some therapeutic areas, such as oncology and certain rare diseases where many new medicines target small population groups and command high prices. While these may well address unmet needs, they often have prices that may not be justified by the health benefits they confer.

Countries may be ill-prepared for the arrival of novel medicines targeting wide  population groups. In 2013, the first of a new class of very effective but expensive
drugs known as direct-acting anti-virals (DAAs) for hepatitis C created a shock due to the potential budget impact of treating all infected people. Many countries initially restricted access to the most severely affected patients, creating frustration among patients and clinicians alike. Although subsequent entries of alternative products have created competition on prices and allowed payers to expand eligibility to treatment, the initial shock highlighted the lack of readiness of payers for such events.

In some countries, sudden, large price increases for off-patent medicines have made important treatments unaffordable for patients.

Finally, innovation is lacking in certain areas of high-unmet need, such as new antimicrobials, non-vascular dementia, and some rare diseases.

The report summarises different proposals and measures that would be helpful for a government that cares about citizens' welfare. Unfortunately, this is not our case.

Exhibition at Foto Collectanea

The charade of doing well by doing good

Winners Take All
THE ELITE CHARADE OF CHANGING THE WORLD

Anand Ghiridhas has done a great job with his new book. He has set up the context for understanding the duality government elites. I've picked only several key statements. The whole book is well written and gives a lot of examples (US-based of course).

Many millions of Americans, on the left and right, feel one thing in common: that the game is rigged against people like them. Perhaps this is why we hear constant condemnation of “the system,” for it is the system that people expect to turn fortuitous developments into societal progress. Instead, the system—in America and around the world—has been organized to siphon the gains from innovation upward, such that the fortunes of the world’s billionaires now grow at more than double the pace of everyone else’s, and the top 10 percent of humanity have come to hold 90 percent of the planet’s wealth.

Some elites faced with this kind of gathering anger have hidden behind walls and gates and on landed estates, emerging only to try to seize even greater political power to protect themselves against the mob. But in recent years a great many fortunate people have also tried something else, something both laudable and self-serving: They have tried to help by taking ownership of the problem.

What is at stake is whether the reform of our common life is led by governments elected by and accountable to the people, or rather by wealthy elites claiming to know our best interests. We must decide whether, in the name of ascendant values such as efficiency and scale, we are willing to allow democratic purpose to be usurped by private actors who often genuinely aspire to improve things but, first things first, seek to protect themselves. Yes, government is dysfunctional at present. But that is all the more reason to treat its repair as our foremost national priority.