The rights and wrongs of headlines

Imagine that you see this headline in the newspaper: "Private health insurance has new 100.000 members". You may think, that's quite a lot. And you forget to read that this news reflects two years, not only one. And you go inside the report and you see that in 2011 there was an artificial jump because 4 companies had not reported previously.
And finally you are looking desperately for the right number. How many people have really bought a voluntary insurance policy in 2012? The answer is 47.370 new members, that's the right figure.
The duplicate coverage ratio is up 0,20 percentage points, to 24,6% of the population (1.842.121) p.22.
And that's all. Forget the newspaper, go straight to the report. This is the advantage of internet access and the reason why some journalists should rethink their work, they should avoid press releases and verify data.

PS.You'll not be able find the original press release on the internet, it has been removed.

ED Crowding

Informe de l’activitat notificada al Registre del conjunt mínim bàsic de dades d’urgències

How many visits to the emergency department are really urgent?. Up to now we hadn't a clear answer. A recent report says clearly that according to triage data, 13,3% of visits at hospitals ED are non-urgent. Is this figure accurate?. Well, if we look at the US, 12% of visits are non-urgent. We know that triage data is the only possible source for this evaluation right now. Other approaches are possible, but require larger effort.
From the data, we can conclude that reducing non-urgent care at ED is always important, but may have low impact on ED crowding.
In p.13 of the report I find that 3,9% of visits have uncertain funding. I can't understand why. Only 4.681 visits were performed under international social security agreements, it seems that there are very few cases.
Anyway, it is the first release of the report, and this is good news. We need such information to understand what's going on.

Behavioural economic-informed regulation

From Nudging to Budging: Using Behavioural Economics to Inform Public Sector Policy

Is it possible to design a regulatory mechanism to budge the private sector away from socially harmful acts?. Adam Oliver, from LSE offers his view at the Journal of Social Policy:

The role of government is not, for the most part, to interfere with personal lifestyle choices unless those choices present harms – or negative externalities – to others, although the government may be warranted in enforcing some behaviours designed to protect people principally from themselves if the intervention is considered openly and explicitly and supported widely, such as seatbelt legislation. The most effective way of preventing people or organisations harming others is to regulate their activities. Nudge is anti-regulation, but behavioural economics is not.

An awareness of the main behavioural economic findings – for example, present bias, reference points, loss aversion and nonlinear probability weighting – can help to inform decisions on where and how to regulate (for instance, traffic light food labelling), and may also ensure that public officials gain a better understanding of their own decision making limitations.

As I have said before, the idea sounds appealing, its implementation remains uncertain.

The size of the loss

Estadística dels centres hospitalaris de Catalunya, 2011

We live in difficult times. Economic downturn continues, although some politicians say the opposite. If we take 2011 hospital data, the size of the loss of private acute hospitals was 4,9% of income (33,7 m euro), for public utilization hospitals: 1,3% (71,7 m euro). Two different patterns emerge, in private hospitals income and expenditure increases, while in public hospitals income and expenditure drops (p.32). Public beds per 1000 inhabitants falls in 14 basic points, while in private is quite the same (+1 basic point).
Let's wait for 2012 report.

Charting a new territory: health systems vulnerability

Learning from Economic Downturns How to Better Assess, Track, and Mitigate the Impact on the Health Sector

Regarding the measurement of country-specific health system vulnerability to economic crises in comparison to peers and over time, the WB new report says:

Compared to other fields, such as food security (Food Price Watch 2012; Messier et al. 2012) and environmental vulnerability (SOPAC 2010), the health system lags behind in providing standardized definitions, metrics, and applied tools that would help assess crisis-related vulnerabilities. There are no descriptive tools that would allow for retrospective comparison, let alone predictive tools that would enable early warning signals.

The vulnerability assessment that they propose sounds of interest at a first glance. Spain, Cyprus, Italy and Greece are at the top of european ranking of vulnerability (p.60). Data come from 2010, rigth now the position would be a different one, even worse than before. The problem is that variation within each country is huge, comparing countries is an easy way to forget such differences.

Fundamental misconceptions about health economists and economics

Economics: the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world?

Twitter is a risky tool. Your short messages are seen worldwide, be careful. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, sent 10 tweets about economics and economists. Ten misconceptions, one behind the other. Certain people consider that such sentences doesn't deserve an answer, they only reflect the personality and knowledge of the author. Others, like David Parkin, John Appleby and Alan Maynard think the opposite and they decided to write a comment this week in The Lancet. This is an article for the files. And it fits perfectly as a recommended reading for those that share these controversial views of Richard Horton:

Panel: Tweets from @richardhorton: “Economics, second only to ‘management’, may just be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.”
The case against economics:
1 The promise economics offers is seductive: how to allocate scarce resources in society.
It’s a false promise.
2 Economists write as if the economy=society, and societal problems=economic problems. The confl ation is false too.
3 Once there was political economy = economics, ethics, politics. Economists have stripped morality from economics, leaving an arid science.
4 The high points of economic thinking are theories, not data. Reliable experimentally derived data are anathema for most economists.
5 Economists see health as an economic good. It is an opportunity cost, with zero intrinsic value.
6 Rationality, for the economist, means subjecting every thought/decision to a cost-benefit analysis. A wholly narrow view of humanity.
7 The big idea in economics is the market. The assumption is that human beings make cost-benefit decisions based only on self-interest.
8 The essence of economics is price. For those in health who argue for access free at point of delivery, we kill the soul of the economist.
9 Economists deny the existence of citizens. They see only consumers.
10 Finally, it’s acceptable to worsen the lives of some provided the gains of others compensate. Economists institutionalise inequality.A sum of nonsense sentences, one behind the other. 

After reading the comment to each of these tweets, it will be difficult to maintain the same position.
And the authors' conclusion:

What motivated Horton’s critical outburst about economics and economists is not clear. More than 40 years ago, an essay by Alan Williams to defend economic evaluation admitted its imperfections, but concluded with Maurice Chevalier’s view on old age: “Well, there is quite a lot I don’t like about it, but it’s not so bad when you consider the alternative!”Economics, like medicine, is imperfect. The challenge for practitioners of each is to ensure that the perfect does not drive out the good. Our practices may at times be imperfect, but that should not inhibit our drive to improve clinical practice and economic activity for the benefit of all our patients and citizens. We all must strive to avoid confused analysis in displays of modest understanding of each other’s work.

Becoming a physician in your country

Once again I have to explain that we live in a weird country. Imagine for a while that you are at the moment of taking the difficult decision about your future professional career. Imagine that you would like to become a physician. You live in a country that still needs new physicians and in the near future a lot of them will retire. If you succeed on that challenge, then you belong to one third (37%) of those that this year have entered into the profession.
The question is why are we not able to fill the remaining 73% with candidates coming from our towns and cities?. There is a perfect messy regulation that blocks any posibility that the students interested in medicine, with excellent curricula and grades, can enter university.
This is a way to constrain career and life development for new generations and restrict access to close professionals for the population. A complete human made disaster. There is only one possibility to survive in such situation, a quick disconnection.

A transactional patient experience

When Seeing The Same Physician, Highly Activated Patients Have Better Care Experiences Than Less Activated Patients

Patient engagement with the treatment of the disease is increasingly relevant. It seems that we have rediscovered that successful outcomes not only depend on the health care system, the patient behaviour may change the course of the disease. The conceptualisation of this trend has come up with a new term: patient activation - a term referring to the knowledge, skills, and confidence a patient has for managing his or her health care-.
A recent article at HA highlights the issue:

Patients at higher levels of activation had more positive experiences than those at lower levels seeing the same clinician. The observed differential was maintained when we controlled for demographic characteristics and health status. We did not find evidence that patients at higher levels of activation selected providers who were more patient centric. The findings suggest that the care experience is transactional, shaped by both providers and patients. Strategies to improve the patient experience, therefore, should focus not only on providers but also on improving patients’ ability to elicit what they need from their providers.

Easier said than done. Anyway, this is not an excuse to put efforts in such direction.

 In addition, a recent study found that patients at higher levels of activation have lower health care costs than those at lower levels.

There is no reason for procrastination, given the current state of resource scarcity.

For another day

The Actress, the Court, and What Needs to Be Done to Guarantee the Future of Clinical Genomics

The introduction of new technologies and benefits in health care is always a perfect chaotic process. It starts with the creation of great expectations that have to be fulfilled (and publicly funded!). In some sense it could be understood as a remake of the Nintendo story of undersupply and artificial scarcity creation. Some genome based biomarkers fits partly with this paradigm.
The case of Angeline Jolie -double mastectomy after BRCA testing positive- was broadcasted worldwide in the weeks before the ruling against gene patenting. Creating uncertainty and scarcity artificially is a heavier combination. And in this situations is when common good has to be protected, and government has the key role.
Two selected messages from this week in PLOS Biology:

If clinical genomics is about to move forward at a more rapid pace due to broader public awareness and a more favorable legal climate then there is still work to be done on the ethical, regulatory, and legal fronts.

Celebrities are now drawing public attention to the utility of genetic testing. With the Supreme Court decision opening the door to more and perhaps cheaper entry into the testing market, the requisite infrastructure for managing risk and the rules for handling risk information must be strengthened. Making testing more widely available will only be morally acceptable if there are rules of the road in place.

 Meanwhile, our regulator is just waiting for another day, then it may be too late.

Music video by Nikki Yanofsky performing For Another Day. 

(C) 2010 Decca Label Group

Neither manipulated, nor influenced

Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice
A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy

When thinking on health behaviour change, the nudging approach is the trending topic. Let's remember the origins:

The contribution of Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge, however, is not that of conveying novel scientific insights or results about previously unknown biases and heuristics (something that Thaler has championed in his academic publications. Instead, it is the notion of “nudge” itself, and the suggestion of this as a viable approach in public policy-making to influence citizens’ behaviour while avoiding the problems and pitfalls of traditional regulatory approaches.

A recent article explains details about two types of nudging:

Type 1 nudges and type 2 nudges. Both types of nudges aim at influencing automatic modes of thinking. But while type 2 nudges are aimed at influencing the attention and premises of – and hence the behaviour anchored in – reflective thinking (i.e. choices), via influencing the automatic system, type 1 nudges are aimed at influencing the behaviour maintained by automatic thinking, or consequences thereof without involving reflective thinking.

And both can be transparent or non-transparent.  An example of a transparent type 1 nudge is one used by the Danish National Railway agency. Speakers in city trains are used to announce “on time” when trains arrive on time. This nudge has been devised in order to get people to easily remember not just the negative, for example, when a train is delayed, but also the positive, when trains are on time. Non-transparent is closely related to manipulation of behavior and choice.

The authors conclude:

The characterization of nudging as the manipulation of choice is too simplistic. Both classical economic theory and behavioural economics describe behaviour as always resulting from choices, but the psychological dual process theory that underpins behavioural economics, used by Thaler and Sunstein, distinguishes between automatic behaviours, and reflective choices. Nudging always influences the former, but it only sometimes affects the latter. The conceptual implication of this is that nudging only sometimes targets choices.

That's a good point. More details inside the article.

PS Understanding the differences between:  Clinical Categorical vs. Regression Based patient classification systems.

PS. Waste vs. value by U. Reinhardt. Must read.

Investing heavily

Global Healthcare Private Equity Report 2013

Healthcare represents about 10% of global private equity in general. Since this is more or less the proportion of health expenditures on the GDP would sound normal. However, since more or less two thirds of this expenditure is public in western countries, we can say that currently private equity may be overweighted in health sector, compared to others. The reason is that private equity may expect better returns in healhcare than in other parts of the economy.
Anyway, if you are interested in the details of what's going on, I suggest you to have a look at: Global Healthcare Private Equity Report 2013.
A key message about who is investing and where:

One clear theme that emerged in 2012, however, was the growing level of private equity firms’ interest in healthcare in China, India and across the Asia-Pacifi c region (see Figure 3). With opportunities abounding and restrictions on foreign direct investment relaxing to some extent, Western funds are building up their presence in Asia-Pacifi c by opening new offi ces, especially in China and Southeast Asia. Over the next several years, deal activity is likely to continue heating up in new geographies as it stabilizes in traditional ones.
Despite the allure of new markets, Western investors face a healthy dose of competition from local investment firms that have already taken root in the regions and strategic players searching for new outlets for growth. At the same time, investors based in the Arabian Gulf region (including sovereign wealth funds) are also investing heavily in emerging markets, with the long-term goal of bringing much-needed healthcare solutions back to their home countries. Given their unconventional investment theme, such investors are often willing to accept lower returns, consequently bidding up valuations across the board.

I always say that if you want to know about the future, it is helpful to have a conversation with a private equity investor and a headhunter. Capital and talent drive the economy, and both are interested in the appropriate allocation of risk and reward.

Quo vaditis?

Resource allocation in health care is a nightmare for any regulator. Since competitive prices are unavailable, payment systems have to be designed in order to achieve a greater efficiency, better quality and access. Two decades ago a chapter in a book on that topic summarized the knowledge and potential applications. The title was: Hospital Groups and Case-Mix Measurement for Resource Allocation and Payment, and the authors: Pere Ibern, James C. Vertrees, Kenneth G. Manton,Max A. Woodbury. This was the result of my stay as a visiting researcher at Duke University, Center for Demographic Studies. I had the unique opportunity to share knowledge with extraordinarily talented people.
For many years, things moved smoothly. A summary of the state of the art in 2007 is provided in a chapter of this book (p.259).
After twenty years, things have changed, quo vaditis payment systems?. Right now we focus on incentives for integrated care, and accordingly payment systems have to follow a different path. Bundled care and episode of care, these are the crucial topics right now.
However, regulator's inertia and risk avoidance are the greatest constraints for change. It is difficult to leave the confort zone. Although we know that current payment systems require a new design, decisions are being delayed. The latest words of Seamus Heaney, recently passed away, fit perfectly as a key message: Noli timere, don't fear.

A central dilemma

Reconsidering the Politics of Public Health

These are difficult times for public health regulators. JAMA highlights the issue:

A central dilemma in public health is reconciling the role of the individual with the role of the government in promoting health. On the one hand, governmental policy approaches—taxes, bans, and other regulations—are seen as emblematic of “nanny state” overreach. In this view, public health regulation is part of a slippery slope toward escalating government intrusion on individual liberty. On the other hand, regulatory policy is described as a fundamental instrument for a “savvy state” to combat the conditions underlying an inexorable epidemic of chronic diseases. Proponents of public health regulation cite the association of aggressive tobacco control, physical activity, and nutritional interventions with demonstrable increases in life expectancy

The article presents 5 ways towards a solution. The fifth says:

Physicians may bear particular responsibility in addressing the problem that psychologists call “hyperbolic discounting”— the human tendency to discount the value of future conditions bya factor that increases with the length of delay. Physicians bear witness to regrets about prior unhealthy choices in poignant moments— for example, the ex-smoker who wheezes in trying to keep up with grandchildren—and work to prevent other patients from experiencing avoidable fates.Perhaps physicians and other health professionals, as a result, have a special duty to weigh in on how society mitigates the social and environmental conditions that lead toward unhealthy choices

Wishful thinking again?.
Why should physicians bear such huge responsibility? "Nanny physicians"? What about citizens?. As you know, my focus is on shared decision making. Unfortunately the article doesn't mention it.

PS. What's goign on in Catalonia? Have a look at WSJ today. This is not a dilemma, it's a fact.

PS. Are you willing to pay 12.380€ for an additional survival of 36 days -progression free in breast cancer- ?. NICE considers that cost per QALY of Eribulin is 91.778 €. Are you willing to pay this cost? Forget the question,  there is no dilemma, the social insurance will pay it for you as from today. We are rich enough to afford it.

PS. If somebody wants to know how neuromarketing is being applied, have a look at the following documentary: "Don't think, just buy". Public health regulators can learn a lot from this experience to counter commercial efforts on junk foods and beverages.

Humanity cannot be owned

Gene Patenting — The Supreme Court Finally Speaks

In light of recent resolution of US Supreme Court on gene patenting, beyond technicalities, the most important is the final decision. All nine Justices of the Court agreed that the segments of DNA that make up human genes are not patentable subject matter. The Myriad case has raised expectations, now the business model is more clear than yesterday, at least in US. However, nobody talks about those patents already acknowledged and what it happens.
The best summary is in the NEJM article:

The Myriad decision will be an important symbol for those who seek to foster scientific discovery by protecting and expanding the public domain. It also has symbolic resonance with the ideal that our common humanity cannot be owned. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights declares the human genome to be “the heritage of humanity” and that “the human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains.”

In Europe the patentability of genetic materially is legally protected by the EU's Biotech Directive, which holds that "biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process" may be patentable "even if it previously occurred in nature." FP says: European firms may now have a lot more leeway than their American counterparts.
Does this make any sense? We should start a review process of genetic patents legislation immediately.