Many people dread dealing with health insurance. Choosing the right plan, navigating benefits and understanding premiums, copays and deductibles can leave you frustrated and confused. Even in economic research, health insurance markets pose some of the most challenging questions.

But Maria Polyakova, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, is motivated to find the answers.

Intrigued by the shifting dynamics of the industry and inspired partly by her own experience of finding health care coverage during graduate school, Polyakova has joined a small group of health economists who are at the forefront of examining the increasing complexities surrounding the provision of medical insurance.

Changes under the Affordable Care Act have deepened the connection between public and private players, Polyakova says. There’s a rise in health care plans that are publicly funded but privately run. And many people using public plans, like Medicare, are supplementing their coverage with private add-on insurance.

The intertwined relationship raises a host of policy challenges, which Polyakova outlines in this detailed policy brief.

“We're moving toward this world where we think competition in health insurance is good because that somehow increases efficiencies and provides consumers with choices that they like,” Polyakova says. “But on the other hand, there has been a lot of debate on whether health insurance is the right place to have choice.”

Polyakova, an assistant professor of health research and policy at the School of Medicine, joined Stanford in 2014. Her ongoing economic research looks at the impact of government policies in social insurance  on consumer behavior, insurer behavior and market outcomes, including risk protection and redistribution.

By investigating the design of health insurance systems, Polyakova’s work could inform policymakers on the extent the government should facilitate competition among insurers that are providing social insurance benefits, or the steps public and private insurers can take to reduce risks and costs for consumers. Her early forays have gained recognition.

For her doctoral thesis on Medicare Part D — the prescription drug component of the federal health insurance program — Polyakova won the 2015 Ernst-Meyer Prize, which recognizes original research about risk and health insurance economics. She also received the John Heinz Dissertation Award from the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2015.

Her findings included evidence of substantial inertia among enrollees, despite significant changes in about 40 plans under Medicare Part D.

“If no one actually ever reacts to changes in products,” Polyakova says, “it could defeat the purpose of having competition.”

Polyakova continues to drill into details where answers may lie. Her empirical research in progress ranges from examining new ways of calculating risk to the effects of word choice in insurance plan descriptions.

“Policies are labeled silver, gold, platinum — theoretically to simplify the plans. But in reality, those simplifications may lead people to choose plans that are not the best for them,” she says. “Assessing the implications of their choices for the overall efficiency of the health insurance system is tricky”

The health care system appeared much more straightforward in Germany, where she worked for a year after graduating in 2008 from Yale with a bachelor’s degree in economics and mathematics.

Then while attending graduate school at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Polyakova went through the hassles of figuring out the health insurance system and how insurers reimburse medical providers. She recalls thinking, “Why is this so complicated?”

Polyakova turned her focus to health economics after taking some courses with MIT Professor Amy Finkelstein, a pioneer in the field who became Polyakova’s primary advisor.

“It was very contagious,” Polyakova says.

A long line of research has shown that women live longer than men, yet according to Karen Eggleston, director of the Asia Health Policy Program, and four other Stanford health researchers, mortality rate differences between men and women are much more variable than previously thought, following predictable patterns. Life expectancy differs depending on time, location and socioeconomic circumstance, not on biological factors alone, according to their newly published findings.

The researchers found that women have greater resilience when faced with socioeconomic adversity in a developing country—living nearly 10 years longer than men on average—but this pattern changes as the country evolves. Developed countries typically have smaller gaps in mortality rates between men and women than developing countries do.

Japan and South Korea are outliers, however, with higher mortality rate differences between men and women than is average for developed countries. In addition to the prevalence of male smoking, one possible explanation they draw is the lack of career-related opportunities for women in Japan and South Korea, two countries that have low gender wage equity among Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development members.

Eggleston, who is part of the core faculty at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, et al. suggested the idea that reducing gender inequality may help narrow the mortality gap: men increase years lived when fewer barriers for women exist, but concluded that their findings supporting this conclusion merit further inquiry.

Their findings were published in the August edition of SSM – Population Health and highlighted in an earlier column on Voxeu.

Ponte a prueba. Put yourself to the test.

As he explained during the recent Rosenkranz Prize Symposium, Stefano M. Bertozzi used this slogan to promote health reform in the Mexico City prison system. By encouraging inmates to step up and get themselves tested for HIV and other chronic illnesses, Bertozzi, dean and professor of health policy and management at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, was able to decrease the spread of illnesses in Mexican prisons and the surrounding communities.

The Rosenkranz Prize Symposium celebrated research projects that—like Bertozzi’s—address the health care needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations. With support from the Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, Stanford scholars have stepped up to tackle health issues in regions in need.

Since 2010, the award has funded six young Stanford researchers who aim to improve health in developing countries. The symposium celebrated their achievements.

The award honors the work of Dr. George Rosenkranz who spent his career reducing health disparities around the globe. Rosenkranz, who was the first to synthesize cortisone and the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, also celebrated his 100^th birthday at the symposium.

Producing research that will increase care for vulnerable populations globally is the ultimate goal of the Rosenkranz Prize.

Andrés Moreno-Estrada, the 2012 winner, has used the award to study genetics in Latin American and Caribbean populations, aiming to increase knowledge of potential genetic illnesses. He said, “The Rosenkranz Prize is a clear, important step forward to demonstrate that we can do cutting edge science in developing countries that is of international relevance.”

Other winners include Eran Bendavid, Sanjay Basu, Marcella Alsan, Jason Andrews and Ami Bhatt. Their projects range from the effect of AIDS relief efforts on health care delivery to the treatment of diabetes in India to low-cost diagnostic tools for regions lacking infrastructure.

“I can’t think of a better way to celebrate (my father’s) birthday than listening to the bright future of science,” said Ricardo T. Rosenkranz, son of Dr. George Rosenkranz and a prize donor. “We can’t wait to hear what the next Rosenkranz Prize winners tell us.”

Click below for event photo gallery:

An independent panel of medical experts has updated 20-year-old guidelines for evaluating cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, in an effort to help everyone from policymakers to patients make more informed decisions about tests and treatments.

Released in a special communication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the panelists spent more than three years building on the work of the 1996 Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, originally convened by the U.S. Public Health Service. They developed recommendations by consensus.

The new recommendations are intended to guide decision-makers in using new methods for analyzing evidence, reporting standardized results, incorporating both health-care system and societal perspectives, as well as weighing ethical issues in the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

“Some people question the use of economic analyses in health care, but cost-effective analysis is a way to ensure that we are proving high-value care,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, a professor of medicine and senior investigator of the VA Palo Alto Heath Care System, who sat on the panel.

“If we do interventions without understanding their value, we may well spend money on something that may not really be worth it,” said Owens. “Cost effectiveness analysis is one approach to understanding how we can help control health-care costs and provide high-value health care.”

Image

The panel was led by co-chairs Gillian D. Sanders, Professor in the Department of Medicine and a member of both the Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Peter J. Neumann, Director, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University.

Sanders said CEA could help inform decisions about how to apply new or existing medical tests, therapies, and prevention techniques so that decision-makers use health-care resources wisely.

“As health-care costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates, these recommendations provide a framework for comparing the relative value of different health-care interventions, and help decision-makers across the spectrum from policymakers to patients sort through alternatives and decide what tests and treatments make sense,” she said.

Neumann noted that in the 20 years since the original panel’s report, the field of cost-effectiveness analysis has advanced, as has the need to deliver health-care efficiently.

“Updating the guidelines provides an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers,” he said.

Primarily funded by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the panel recommends several key changes to the guidelines, while confirming other principles from the first panel, including:

1. Broadening the scope and number of reference cases in a cost analysis, which describe standard methodology that should be followed to ensure quality analysis by creating comparable measurements. The panel is recommending that all CEAs should not report two reference cases: one based on a health-care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective.
2. Using an “impact inventory” that lists the health and non-health effects of a health-care intervention to ensure that all consequences are considered, including those to patients, caregivers, social services and others outside the health-care sector. This tool also allows analysts to look at categories of impacts that may be most important to stakeholders.
3. Measuring health effects in terms of quality adjusted life years, a common measure used by health researchers that includes both the quality and quantity of life lived.
4. Including both costs reimbursed by third-party payers and those paid for out-of-pocket by patients in health-care sector analyses.
5. Including a reporting checklist and guidelines for transparency that includes assumptions in any analysis and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

The complete report of the so-called Second Panel will be published in October.

The panelists noted that the field of CEA has emerged dramatically since the last guidelines 20 years ago. For example, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, which establishes national immunization policy recommendations on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now uses CEA in its calculations.

“The need to deliver health-care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health, have only increased,” the Second Panel authors wrote in the JAMA paper.

Health-care spending in the United States comprised 13 percent of GDP in 1995; today it approaches 18 percent. And the total national health expenditures have tripled during that period, jumping to more than $3 trillion in 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“The goal of the Second Panel is to promote the continued evolution of CEA and its use to support judicious, efficient, and fair decisions regarding the use of health-care resources,” the experts wrote in the JAMA article.

Imagine there’s a new pill on the market. It promises you a one in 200 chance of avoiding a heart attack, stroke, heart failure or death over the next year — if you take it religiously.

It also promises a one in 60 chance of landing you in the hospital for some serious complication: Maybe you passed out. Maybe the pill affected your kidney function. Maybe you developed a severe electrolyte imbalance.

Would you take it? How would you decide?

This question is confronting some patients with hypertension as well as their health-care providers who, like me, help manage their blood pressure. The “pill” is not a pill per se, but a treatment strategy.

In November of 2015, researchers published results of a large NIH-sponsored trial known as SPRINT, which compared two systolic blood pressure treatment targets for hypertensive adults: a higher, conventional target of 140 mm mercury compared to a more stringent target of 120.  Participants in the trial were older, did not have diabetes, and were generally at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease. They were prescribed commonly used blood pressure medications, which were carefully adjusted by investigators to achieve target blood pressures.

The trial demonstrated a large relative benefit: Those in the lower target group had about a 25 percent reduction in the rate of cardiovascular disease or death. The absolute benefit, though, was small, with only about one in 200 patients avoiding cardiovascular disease or death as a result of treatment. The trial also showed that complications in the lower target group were relatively common.

As a physician, I’d love to be able to tell the patient in my exam room whether she will be the lucky one out of 200 who will benefit. That dream is still a few years off. I can, though, answer a related question. If I treat a large group of patients, on the whole, will my patients benefit? Or will the harms of treatment outweigh the benefits? And if the treatment is overall beneficial, what investment will we need to achieve this gain in health?

Image

To answer this question, I teamed up with a group of researchers at Stanford. Our team included experts in cost-effectiveness analysis as well as students developing clinical and analytic expertise in this area. We used data from SPRINT along with other published sources to project the expected benefits, harms and costs from targeting a lower or higher blood pressure over the course of a lifetime.

Results of our study were published this week in JAMA Cardiology. We found that targeting a lower blood pressure results in a substantial net benefit, even after accounting for harms from common, serious adverse events. This net benefit, though, doesn’t come free: An investment of about $23,777 is required for every year of life gained from this strategy.

Is $23,777 “worth it?” It’s a hard question to answer and it depends, in part, on who is paying. But in the spectrum of medical interventions that we routinely use here in the United States, this would be considered a good deal, a bargain even.

So should we go all in? Should we push stringent blood pressure targets for everyone?

No. There are a number of other considerations. SPRINT answered a specific question about hypertension treatment in a specific group of patients. Whether other groups of patients, like those at lower risk of cardiovascular disease, would benefit is unclear. There were also methodological quirks that have left the trial open to criticism.

But if we believe that the findings from SPRINT are generally correct, a lower blood pressure target seems to provide significant health gains for a reasonable cost in patients who are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Ilana B. Richman, MD, is a VA Health Services Research and Development Fellow at Stanford Health Policy.