Americans know that choosing a health insurance plan can tough. And once you’re retired and possibly on a limited or fixed income, it can become downright brutal.

Stanford Health Policy’s M. Kate Bundorf and Maria Polyakova and their colleagues set out to develop an online decision-support tool to test whether machine-based expert recommendations would influence choice among Medicare Part D enrollees — and make it easier.

“The use of technology seems like a natural way to address the challenges of choosing among plans,” they write in their study published in Health Affairs.

Medicare beneficiaries have been choosing among Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans for years, and more recently the Affordable Care Act established health insurance marketplaces for those who are younger than 65.

All that choice is supposed to create incentives for plans to offer a variety of low-cost, high-quality products that allow people to choose the plan that best meets their needs.

But sometimes too many good choices can lead to bad outcomes.

“Health insurance is a complex financial product with complicated cost-sharing rules, and the implications of different benefit designs for out-of-pocket spending and health care use vary across consumers depending on their needs,” wrote Bundorf, chief of the Department of Health Research and Policy and an associate professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine.

Another researcher in the study was Albert Chan, chief of digital patient experience and an investigator at Sutter Health, in Palo Alto, as well as an adjunct professor at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Ming Tai-Seale, a professor of family medicine and public health at University of California San Diego, was also a principal investigator of the study.

Choosing Health Plan is Complicated

“Consistent with these challenges, researchers have documented that many consumers, both young and old, do not understand the characteristics of their plans,” they wrote in the March issue of Health Affairs, which is holding a public briefing on patients-as-consumers at the National Press Club on March 5th. Bundorf will present their research at the briefing in Washington, D.C., which will be streamed live and will be posted here once it has aired.

Image

“(Patients) often make decisions that may signal inaccurate evaluation of the costs and benefits of coverage — such as staying in their plan when better options are available, not enrolling in the plan that provides the best coverage for their drugs, or enrolling in plans that are objectively inferior to other available choices,” the authors wrote.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) offers a tool to help beneficiaries choose among plans, but older adults — even those with high levels of formal education — find it difficult to use.

So, the research team developed a decision-support software tool called CHOICE to assist Medicare beneficiaries in choosing a Part D prescription plan. The software automatically imported the user’s list of current drugs from their electronic medical records (allowing users to adjust the list if desired); the algorithm would then crunch the numbers to come up with three recommended plans which were likely to be the least expensive for the user.

The team then conducted a randomized trial of this software tool among 1,185 patients of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a large health-care provider in Northern California. Fifty-four percent of those patients were women, 65 percent were white, and 54 percent were married. Living in the Bay Area, their income and education levels were fairly high: They lived in areas in which the median income is $106,808 and 54 percent of the population has a college degree or more education.

While not representative of the general population of seniors in the United States, the researchers emphasized that it was important to conduct this study among these potential users, who are more likely to respond positively to an interaction with a computer. If these users didn’t find this software helpful or user friendly, it would not likely be a useful tool to roll out across the country as a whole.

Image

The study participants received access to one of two versions of the CHOICE tool: expert recommendations or individual analysis. Both versions automatically imported information on patients’ prescription drugs from their electronic health records and combined it with information on plan benefit design to provide individually customized information on users’ likely spending on both premiums and prescription drugs in each of the stand-alone Part D plans available in their area. The version of CHOICE that offered expert recommendations combined this information with an explicit recommendation on which plans were best for the user.

Willing and Able

The researchers found that providing an online tool not only increased older adults’ satisfaction with the process of choosing a prescription drug plan, but they also spent more time choosing that plan.

“The most significant finding of our trial is that individually customized information alone didn’t seem to be enough,” Bundorf, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), said in an interview. “The tool we developed was most effective when individually customized information paired with a clear-cut algorithmic expert recommendation that highlighted three plans that the computer thought were the best for the user based on total spending for prescription drugs.”

She said she was surprised to see that people spent more time choosing a plan and were more satisfied with the process when they had access to the CHOICE tool.

“Prior to our trial, I thought people might spend less time choosing a plan when they had access to expert recommendations because it would make the process easier,” Bundorf said. “But taken together, these results suggest that people are more engaged in decision-making when they have access to a patient-centered tool.”

Polyakova, who is also a faculty fellow at SIEPR, said a key takeaway from the trial is that people who are likely to use sophisticated tools are already more likely be more sophisticated shoppers of health care and prescription plans.

To prescribe or not prescribe? In the realm of the nation’s opioid epidemic, it’s an important question.

Research has shown that inappropriate use of prescription opioids is part of the reason behind a dramatic rise in opioid-related deaths since 2000. By 2015, the amount of opioids prescribed in the U.S. had tripled — enough for every American to be medicated around the clock for three weeks, at 5 milligrams of hydrocodone every four hours. 

Now, new research by a trio of Stanford scholars shows how different insurance strategies affect the volume of opioid use and could help stem inappropriate prescribing behaviors. 

The study, released in a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, was co-authored by Stanford Health Policy’s Laurence C. Baker, M. Kate Bundorf, and Daniel P. Kessler. Baker and Bundorf are professors in the Department of Health Research and Policy at the Medical School; Kessler is a professor in the Law School and Graduate School of Business, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.  All are also senior fellows at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

Their study — the first to investigate the effect of the form of Medicare drug coverage on opioid use — found that enrollment in Medicare Advantage, a combined medical and drug insurance plan, significantly reduces the likelihood of beneficiaries filling an opioid prescription, as compared to enrollment in a stand-alone drug plan.

Compared to beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone plans, those enrolled in the integrated Medicare Advantage plan were 37 percent less likely to get an opioid prescription, according to their analysis of drug claims from 2014.

The researchers also found that enrollment in integrated insurance coverage under Medicare Advantage had a disproportionate effect on the likelihood of filling an opioid prescription from the nation’s highest opioid-prescribing doctors — the top 1 percent of prescribers in Medicare Part D. The lower likelihood of prescriptions from these high prescribers to Medicare Advantage enrollees accounted for more than half of the reduction, according to their findings.

To understand the scope of this health plan-related effect and what’s at stake, consider the backdrop laid out in the study:

Since its implementation in 2006, Medicare Part D has become the nation’s largest purchaser of prescription opioids. More than 42 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare Part D — either under the stand-alone drug plan or the integrated Medicare Advantage plan.

What’s more, opioid prescriptions are concentrated among a relatively small group of “high prescribers.” 

According to research published in the 2016 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, more than one-third of opioid prescriptions under Medicare Part D were made by about 8,000 doctors, making up the top 1 percent of prescribers. And according to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, “extreme use” and “questionable prescribing” have put almost 90,000 beneficiaries at serious risk for opioid misuse or overdose.

Because the researchers did not examine patient health outcomes, they could not definitively determine that enrollment in Medicare Advantage reduced only inappropriate opioid use. However, because the reduction in opioid use came disproportionately from high prescribers, and previous work has found that Medicare Advantage enrollees had higher prescription drug use overall, the reduction in use that the researchers found was targeted rather than a result of a broader effort to restrict access to treatment.  

The researchers’ results support the conclusions of previous work that integration of prescription drug coverage with the other benefits provided by Medicare Advantage plans

improves the quality of care. Further study will be needed to drill deeper into the reasons behind the impact of Medicare Advantage plans, and whether a similar effect occurs in non-elderly populations, the researchers said.

The national opioid epidemic has grown at such breakneck speed that public health experts have been left scrambling to keep up. Though they understand the reasons behind the abuse — the solutions are complicated and costly.

Yet there appears to be some success at reducing at least one area of opioid abuse.

In new research by Health Research and Policy’s Eric Sun, the risk for chronic opioid use among patients with musculoskeletal pain actually decreased slightly between 2008 and 2014. 

The Stanford Medicine assistant professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine found that measures such as avoiding opioid use soon after diagnosis can further reduce the risk of addiction, especially among patients at highest risk for chronic opioid use.

"We found that early opioid use after diagnosis is predictive of opioid use longer term, suggesting that it may be prudent to minimize opioid use where possible for patients with musculoskeletal pain,” said Sun, whose research was published earlier this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

His co-authors are Jasmin Moshfegh, who is working on her PhD in health policy, and Steven Z. George, director of musculoskeletal research at Duke University School of Medicine.

Patients with lower back or chronic neck, shoulder and knee pain are at the highest risk for opioid abuse since pain meds are typically prescribed to help ease their spasms. 

Patients who suffer musculoskeletal pain may unwittingly transition to chronic opioid use, which means filling 10 or more prescriptions or having a supply for at least 120 days. The prescription drugs include hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxymorphone, and/or oxycodone. Those don’t include heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Sun and his fellow researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine used a large health-care database to assess the risk and risk factors for chronic opioid use among more than 400,000 “opioid-naïve” patients — those who have never been prescribed painkillers before — recently diagnosed with pain in the knee, neck, lower back or shoulder. 

The sample was restricted to privately insured patients, thereby excluding other policy-relevant populations, such as those who were prescribed pain medications under Medicare or Medicaid.

They found that risk for chronic opioid use ranged from 0.3 percent for knee pain to 1.5 percent for multiple-site pan and decreased for some anatomical regions during the timeframe studied. They discovered a relative decline of 25 to 50 percent across all pain types from 2008 to 2014.

Opioid Abuse

Opioid abuse has its roots in the late 1990s when pharmaceutical companies assured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to pain relievers. Clinicians began prescribing them at greater rates because they worked so well and seemed safe.

Today, more than 130 people die every day from opioid-related drug overdoses from prescription pain relievers, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, From 2002 to 2017, there was more than a fourfold increase in opioid deaths, with some 49,000 people dying in 2017.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total economic burden of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United States is $78.5 billion a year, including the costs of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment and criminal justice involvement.

“While our research found that only about 1 percent of patients with musculoskeletal pain progress to chronic opioid use, this is potentially concerning because it’s an extremely common diagnosis,” Sun said. “By pointing out the scope of the issue and identifying factors that place patients at risk, we hope this research will guide further efforts aimed at reducing opioid use among patients with musculoskeletal pain.” 

People who are acquainted with the work of Shorenstein APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP) may be aware of the Innovation for Healthy Aging collaborative research project led by APARC Deputy Director and AHPP Director Karen Eggleston. This project, which identifies and analyzes productive public-private partnerships advancing healthy aging solutions in East Asia and other regions, encompasses an upcoming volume, co-authored by Eggleston with Harvard University professors Richard Zeckhauser and John Donohue, about public and private roles in governance of multiple sectors in China and the United States, including health care and elderly care. This volume, however, is not the first collaboration between Eggleston and Zeckhauser.

Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, is known for his many policy investigations that explore ways to promote the health of human beings, to help markets work more effectively, and to foster informed and appropriate choices by individuals and government agencies. In 2006, Eggleston and Zeckhauser co-wrote a paper about antibiotic resistance as a global threat, an issue that has since received much attention as it has become a critical public health and public policy challenge. Zeckhauser was a pioneer in framing antibiotic resistance as a global threat.

On October 20, 2018, Eggleston was among some 150 colleagues, students, and friends who participated in a special symposium at the Kennedy School to celebrate Zeckhauser’s 50th anniversary of teaching and research, and to anticipate what the next 50 years might bring in the multiple fields he has influenced throughout his long career.

Eggleston joined the first of two panels in that symposium, where she spoke about Zeckhauser’s impact on health policy and about what academics and policymakers should be tackling next on the path to addressing the global threat of antibiotic resistance.

The panel was moderated by Harvard Professor Edward Glaeser. In addition to Eggleston, it included Jeffrey Liebman, Daniel Schrag, and Cass Sunstein.

A video recording of the panel is made available by the Kennedy School. Listen to Eggleston’s remarks (beginning at the 8:42 and 36:20 time marks):

A cutting-edge treatment for blood cancer in children with promising short-term remission rates has nevertheless come under intense scrutiny due to its unprecedented cost.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most commonly diagnosed pediatric cancer. Though treatment advances have driven five-year survival rates above 90 percent, relapse is common and ALL remains a leading cause of death from childhood cancer. Those surviving relapse typically require hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) to remain in remission.

The Food and Drug Administration last year approved tisagenlecleucel as the first anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory pediatric ALL. While tisagenlecleucel-induced remission rates are encouraging compared with those of established therapies — more than 80 percent compared with less than 50 percent — a one-time infusion costs $475,000.

That makes it one of  the most expensive oncologic therapies out there, even though no studies exist to show how the therapy maintains remission in the long term.

So Stanford Health Policy’s John K. Lin, Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert and Douglas K. Owens, in collaboration with Kara Davis, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Stanford’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, set out to determine whether the treatment is cost-effective. 

Their study was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“CAR-T cells are an exciting new therapy to help us cure more patients with ALL,” said Davis. “They use a patient’s own immune system to precisely target their leukemia and remission rates are impressive for patients with relapsed disease.”

The researchers note, however, it remains unknown whether tisagenlecleucel is sufficient to cure relapsed or refractory disease without a transplant.

Not only is it a very expensive treatment, it also has expensive and serious side effects, such as cytokine release syndrome, which can cause symptoms ranging from fevers and muscle aches to lethal drops in blood pressure and difficulty breathing, requiring ICU-level care.

“Given [its] high cost and broad applicability in other malignancies, a pressing question for policymakers, payers, and clinicians is whether the therapy’s cost represents reasonable value,” the authors wrote.

In order to evaluate the economic value of tisagenlecleucel, the authors created a computer simulation that modeled children with relapsed or refractory ALL. Since the durability of the therapy’s effects are unknown, they evaluated the therapy at different levels of long-term effectiveness.

Through their analyses, the authors found that at the simulation’s most optimistic projections, patients receiving tisagenlecleucel would, on average, live over a decade longer than those receiving alternative therapies. At these projections, the therapy would be cost-effective. However, at more modest long-term outcomes, its clinical and economic benefits declined.

Image

“The durability of CAR-T cell therapy is the main question. For many children with relapsed or refractory ALL, their disease is fatal — if the therapy results in sustained remissions, it would represent an important advance,” said lead author Lin, who is a VA Health Services Research and Development Fellow at Stanford Health Policy.

In the end, the researchers concluded that at tisagenlecleucel’s current price, its economic value is “uncertain,” as the true cost-effectiveness depends on its long-term performance, which has yet to be determined. They noted that substantial price reductions would improve its cost-effectiveness even if its long-term performance is relatively modest.

“A commonly asked question for many expensive, novel therapies is why can’t prices be lowered at least until we know how well they work,” said Goldhaber-Fiebert. 

The “Catch-22” here is that long-term effectiveness data are needed to justify a drug’s price, but current uncertainty about its effectiveness, along with its high price, means developing the data to justify its price occurs much more slowly.

“CAR-T is an individually tailored treatment that has thus far been produced for a relatively small number of patients,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said. “Its current production costs may well be very high, and certainly the companies that have spent heavily on its research and development are interested in achieving returns on their investments.”

When the effectiveness of a therapy is uncertain, some pharmaceutical companies and health policy experts have proposed something called outcomes-based payment, which is essentially a “money-back guarantee” if the therapy doesn’t work as intended.

Novartis, which developed tisagenlecleucel, has a money-back guarantee; if the patient does not achieve initial remission within the first month, they are not responsible for the payment of the therapy.

“However, we find that because most children have an initial remission, this does not materially improve cost-effectiveness,” Lin said.

He suggested that if the money-back guarantee were extended to see whether the patient relapses within a year, such a guarantee would improve the treatment’s cost-effectiveness.

The other co-authors of the study are James I. Barnes, Alex Q.L. Robinson, Benjamin J. Lerman, Brian C. Boursiquot and Yuan Jin Tan.

African-American doctors could help reduce cardiovascular mortality among black men by 19 percent — if there was more racial diversity among physicians, according to a new study led by Stanford Health Policy’s Marcella Alsan.

After conducting a randomized clinical trial among 1,300 black men in Oakland, the researchers found that the men sought more preventive services after they were randomly seen by black doctors for a free health-care screening compared to non-black doctors.

“We found that, once African-American men were at the clinic, even though all services were free, those assigned to a black doctor took up more services,” such as flu shots and diabetes and cholesterol screenings, said Alsan, an economist and infectious disease physician who focuses on  health and socioeconomic disparities here at home and around the world.

“It was surprising to see the results,” said Alsan, an associate professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and an investigator at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. “Prior to doing the study, we really were not sure if there would be any effect, much less the magnitude. The signal in our data ended up being quite strong.”

Those signals include the men were 29 percent more likely to talk with black doctors about other health problems and seeking more invasive screenings that likely required more trust in the person providing the service. They found subjects assigned to black doctors increased their uptake of diabetes and cholesterol screenings by 47 percent and 72 percent, respectively.

The researchers calculated that black doctors could reduce cardiovascular mortality by 16 deaths per 100,000 per year, accounting for 19 percent of the black-white gap in cardiovascular-related deaths. They believe that the results would be even larger if extrapolated to other leading causes of death that are amenable to prevention, such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. 

“I was definitely surprised,” said Owen Garrick, president and COO of Bridge Clinical Research, an Oakland-based organization that helps clinical researchers find patients from targeted ethnic groups. “If you ask most people, they feel that there is some impact of black men seeing black doctors — but it has never been quantified using an experimental design.”

Alsan and Garrick, along with U.C. Berkeley graduate student Grant Graziani, published their findings in this working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Garrick, himself an African-American physician, said black doctors tend to present themselves in a manner that puts a black patient at ease, making him more willing to open up and agree to certain care. “The black doctor might explain the medical services in a way that the black patient more clearly understands.”

Garrick called the findings “astounding,” but he warned that increasing the number of black doctors and getting black men to routinely see them are no small tasks.

There is a yawning gap between white physicians and those of color. While African-Americans comprise about 13 percent of the population, only 4 percent of physicians and less than 6 percent of medical school graduates are black, according to the study.

This is compounded by African-American men having the lowest life-expectancy in the country, due to lack of health insurance, lower socioeconomic status and structural racism. 

And there remains a distrust of the U.S. healthcare system at least partially attributed to the infamous Tuskegee study that began in 1932, when the U.S. Public Health Service began following about 600 African-American men in Tuskegee, Alabama. Some two-thirds of the men had syphilis, and USPHS declined to inform those afflicted by the disease. Even after penicillin became the standard of care for syphilis treatment in the mid-1940s, the USPHS continued to withhold treatment. The study was finally halted when a whistleblower went to the press in 1972.

Alsan— with her colleague Marianne Wanamaker at the University of Tennessee — published a study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in February that found the 1972 Tuskegee study revelation was correlated with a reduction in health-seeking behavior and increases in medical mistrust and mortality among African-American men.

Image

The men who participated in the recent study were recruited from barbershops and flea markets in Oakland, a city known for its diversity, yet plagued by a 20 percent rate of poverty.

Field officers —including minority and low-income pre-med students from around the Bay Area — approached men to enroll in the study. After obtaining written consent, the men were given a short survey about socio-demographics, health care and mistrust. For completing the survey, the men received a voucher with up to $25 for their haircut or, in the flea market, a cash incentive.

The men were also given a coupon to receive a free health-care screening for blood pressure, BMI, cholesterol and diabetes at the clinic where the Stanford team operated on Saturdays in the fall and winter of 2017-2018. The patients who did not have transport to the clinic were given free rides courtesy of Uber. Attendance at the clinic was encouraged with another $50 incentive.

Subjects and the 14 participating doctors were told that they were taking part in a Stanford study designed to improve preventive health-care for African-American men.

On top of the significant increases in patients who agreed to diabetes or cholesterol screenings if suggested by a black doctor, the researchers found that the men were 56 percent more likely to get a flu vaccine if randomized to one of the African-American doctors.

The results suggested the more invasive the test, the greater the advantage of being assigned a black doctor. And the findings were even stronger among subjects who had a high mistrust of the medical system as well as those who had limited prior experience with routine medical care.

“In curative care, the patient feels ill and then may seek out medical care to fix the problem,” Alsan said. “But in preventive care, the patient may feel just fine — but must trust the doctor when he is told that certain measures must be taken to safeguard health.” 

The policy implications would suggest that medical schools need to open the pipeline to students from diverse backgrounds who are training for health-care professionals. 

Garrick recommends exposing more young people of color to the field of medicine and helping them to become more competitive applicants through tutoring and interview prep.

“And you need advocates,” he said. “Since much of the medical school selection process is subjective, you need to get people on the selection committees who will relate and see the potential of black applicants as much as people relate to other applicants.”

Some links to other media outlets that have written about this research: 

The New York Times

Harvard Business Review

The Daily Mail

ColorLines