Incentives, a modern frame (2)

Ética de los incentivos a profesionales sanitarios

Revisitng this report released 5 years ago, and comparing some statements with a former post, I can find relevant differences. Though this one is applied and the former is more general, the perspective is focused on having clear answers to specific problems. The definition, appropriateness and foundations of the argument requires deeper elaboration, in my opinion. That's why I suggest you should read the book.

Incentives, a modern frame

Strings Attached: Untangling the Ethics of Incentives

I've found extremely appealing the chapter 2 of the book "Strings Attached", it helps to understand the etimology of incentives as a word in the english language and its meaning:

For more than 250 years, starting in about 1600, the word “incentive” meant “inciting or arousing to feeling or action, provocative, exciting.” Uses cited by the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary include: “The Lord Shaftesbury . . . made an incentive speech in the House of Lords (1734),” or “This Paper is principally designed as an incentive to the Love of our Country (1713).” The last example cited of the term in this sense is dated 1866 and, like the others, it comes from an English source. Then there is a striking change. “Mr. Charles E. Wilson . . . is urging war industries to adopt ‘incentive pay’—that is, to pay workers more if they produce more.” This is the first example from the same dictionary of the use of the term in its contemporary sense, and it is an American example dated three quarters of a century later in 1943.

There is a huge gap in time, place, and meaning between the two sorts of citations, a gap that introduces several puzzles. What was happening in America when the new meaning of incentives was introduced? Why is this conception missing from the vocabulary in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the very years in which the idea of a market economy was being discovered and articulated? We are accustomed to believe that our thinking about political economy rests on the work of the likes of John Locke, Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and the authors of The Federalist Papers. But with very few exceptions, “incentive” does not appear in any of their writings.

Beyond chapter 2, the whole book deserves to be read.

Data, data, data

That's the buzzword: big data. You'll find it in the top articles of 2014 in Health Affairs or in the Forbes Health Care Summit. This summit is where to go if you want to know what's going on in health care in the US, otherwise you cuold have a look at the video. Wether this is really going to create more value widely still remains to be seen.

The politics of calories

Why Calories Count

Marion Nestle says in her book:

In some ways, the calorie environment could not have been more brilliantly constructed to overcome physiological controls of overeating.

The new labeling initiatives have been really minor up to now. Wether they will have beneficial effects in the long run is still unknown. Calorie labeling should be extended when eating outside home and to alcohol.
The government has not paid enough attention to food regulation and specially to information about calories. In the book there is a guide for improvement. This is the previous step in any nudging effort. To be clear, information disclosure is the very beginning of any consumer protection and health promotion policy in this field.

The pivotal role of MSF in global health

Life in Crisis: The Ethical Journey of Doctors Without Borders
MSF: how a humanitarian charity found itself leading the world’s response to Ebola

I've just finished reading a book on MSF, a compelling story of more than 4 decades of support in health and humanitarian crisis.

Life in Crisis tells the story of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and its effort to save lives on a global scale. Begun in 1971 as a French alternative to the Red Cross, MSF has grown into an international institution with a reputation for outspoken protest as well as technical efficiency. It has also expanded beyond emergency response, providing for a wider range of endeavors, including AIDS care. Yet its seemingly simple ethical goal proves deeply complex in practice. MSF continually faces the problem of defining its own limits. Its minimalist form of care recalls the promise of state welfare, but without political resolution or a sense of well-being beyond health and survival. Lacking utopian certainty, the group struggles when the moral clarity of crisis fades. Nevertheless, it continues to take action and innovate. Its organizational history illustrates both the logic and the tensions of casting humanitarian medicine into a leading role in international affairs.

Their achievements are really impressive and nobody can imagine what could have happened this year with the Ebola outbreak without them. To understand their contribution I would like to recommend the article in BMJ:

 The charity had a team in Guinea when the outbreak began in March and has followed the virus as it has spread—building treatment centres in locations as disparate as the jungle and capital cities, deploying mobile units, providing technical support to governments, and training staff. Today MSF has more than 3400 staff on the ground (with one international staff member for every 10 local staff members) and says that it has cared for almost 4000 patients confirmed to have Ebola and many more suspected cases.

 We all have to appreciate their enormous work in such a difficult conditions and their example offers a good guide to understand that beyond governments, well organised nonprofit institutions play a critical role in supporting public health.

PS. I am quite concerned about the nurse's behaviour in the spanish ebola case. Yesterday she admitted that she hadn't told the physician about her exposure to an ebola case. This situation has strong ethical implications, does anybody care about it?

The growing evidence on compression of morbidity

Health, functioning, and disability in older adults—present status and future implications

There is currently a wide debate about chronic care and multimorbidity. Some messages appear that this is strictly connected with ageing, and forget the details. Though disease process have to be tackled, we have to ask ourselves about wellbeing in later life. A key issue is to understand its impact on functioning and disability. This is precisely what a recent article in The Lancet offers. The research question:

Will the years gained be productive and healthy, or will elderly people live longer lives in conditions of ill health? Three main hypotheses have been proposed to address this question.² The compression of morbidity hypothesis posits a situation for which the age of onset of morbidity is delayed to a greater extent than life expectancy rises, thereby compressing morbidity into a short period at a late age.³ The expansion of morbidity hypothesis maintains the opposite, that increases in life expectancy are matched or exceeded by added periods of morbidity.⁴ Both compression and expansion of morbidity could happen in absolute or relative terms—ie, changes in the absolute number of years lived with disability—or in terms of healthy life expectancy as a proportion of total life expectancy.

And a conclusion:

 Our systematic examination of the scientific literature shows that support for morbidity pattern hypotheses varies mainly according to the type of health indicator. Disability-related or impairment-related measures of morbidity tend to support the theory of compression of morbidity, whereas chronic disease morbidity tends to support the expansion of morbidity hypothesis.

This is an article to read and file for the future. The basic approach is defined, the difficulty is about the data. My impression is that we need to use morbidity adjusted life expectancy measures, as those I presented in this blog some months ago. The advantages are clear compared to healthy life expectancy that needs a lot of hypothesis and are based on surveys and self perceptions. Morbidity adjusted measures use  disease codes directly. Why not apply them widely?

PS. The whole series on ageing in The Lancet.

Fasten seat belts (3)

My former posts (1) and (2) alerted about the end of drug pricing as we have known and the begining of an opaque world where nobody knows how much money is involved in getting the value of a specific drug, except the manufacturer. The rationale for that are the confidential agreements between governments and drug firms. Up to now have been seven risk-sharing agreements, and beyond these, central government has set up additional five agreements. This latter agreements are really open-ended budgetary ceelings because it is difficult to estimate when the maximum amount is reached. This is precisely what it is explained by the official in charge of this issue in the journal.
Therefore we have changed the pricing system for an opaque open-ended budgetary ceeling system. It sounds incredible, but that's how it is. I can't believe that nobody worries about it.

PS. Genes and behaviour, on TE. I posted the initial research three years ago in this blog.