BMJ: Can behavioural economics make us healthy

  • BE policies are by design less coercive and more effective than traditional approaches
  • It is generally far more effective to punish than to reward
  • Sticks masquerading as carrots – simultaneous, zero-sum incentives and penalties
  • References to policies which have and have not worked – but why can’t policy be research?
  • Conventional economics can therefore justify regulatory interventions, such as targeted taxes and subsidies, only in situations in which an individual’s actions imposes costs on others—for example, second hand cigarette smoke. But the potential reach of behavioural economics is much greater. By recognising the prevalence of less than perfectly rational behaviour, behavioural economics points to a large category of situations in which policy intervention might be justified—those characterised by costs which people impose on themselves (internalities), such as the long term health consequences of smoking on smokers.
  •  Is it fair to say that in a universal health care system, any preventable ill health imposes costs on others, as it is the tax payer who picks up the cost of treatment?
  • present bias: the tendancy for decision makers tend to put too much weight on costs and benefits that are immediate and too little on those that are delayed. Present bias can be used to positive effect by providing small, frequent (i.e. immediate) payments for beneficial behaviours e.g. smoking cessation, medication adherence, weight loss
  • “peanuts effect” decision error: the tendency to pay too little attention to the small but cumulative consequences of repeated decisions, such as the effect on weightof repeated consumption of sugared beverages or the cumulative health effect of smoking.
  • competition and peer support are more powerful forms of behaviourally mediated interventions

Care of Nicholas Gruen.

PDF: CanBehaviouralEconomicsMakeUsHealthier_BMJ

Similarly in Health Affairs: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/4/661.short

On maps

Geraldine cracked out this terrific interview with Jerry Brotton on his book “A history of the world in twelve maps” covering everything from the folly of the perfect map (take note avid health informaticians) to the consequences of Google’s “cartographic power”.

Program source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/is-there-ever-a-realistic-map/5141292

Local compressed interview recording:

 

Flowing Data: R tutorial

This is a very cool intro to the power of R. It may come in handy…

http://flowingdata.com/2013/11/26/the-baseline/

02-Percent change monthly

This is noisy though. Maybe a year-over-year change would be more useful.

1 curr <- gas$Value[-(1:12)]
2 prev <- gas$Value[1:(length(gas$Value)-12)]
3 annChange <- 100 * round( (curr-prev) / prev, 2 )
4 barCols <- sapply(annChange,
5     function(x) {
6         if (x < 0) {
7             return("#2cbd25")
8         else {
9             return("gray")
10         }
11     })
12 barplot(annChange, border=NA, space=0, las=1, col=barCols, main="% change, annual")

The magnitude of drops in price are more visible this way.

RWJF: How behaviour change really happens

From the video:

  • don’t set up to fail: start with well motivated and capable people
  • the only way to effect long lasting change is either via baby steps or change in the environment
  • agile fast fail / rapid iteration R&D methodology (common in silicon valley) is something health doesn’t do, but should

 

How Behavior Change Really Happens

BJ Fogg, director of the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, is a social scientist, innovator, and teacher who creates systems to change behavior. “If we can help people understand how behavior change really happens in the long-term, then I believe people can design some of their own solutions to have healthier behaviors.”  —BJ Fogg

If we want people to have healthy habits, we need to understand where these habits come from. BJ Fogg’s behavior model gives us a compelling understanding for how behavior change happens, and allows us to better see how our work could inspire these changes.”

What's Next Health Infographic: Who Will Change Their Behavior?

New Yorker post; Weight loss drugs

  • not convinced this isn’t part of some pharma-sponsored PR campaign
  • reference to research indicating gastric bypass may be mediated via changes in flora more than changes in gastric physiology

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/diet-drugs-work-why-wont-doctors-prescribe-them.html

DECEMBER 4, 2013

DIET DRUGS WORK: WHY WON’T DOCTORS PRESCRIBE THEM?

POSTED BY 
 
obese-580.jpg

The woman sat on my exam table and pointed to her snug paper gown. “Doctor,” she said, “I need your help losing weight.”

I spent the next several minutes speaking with her about diet and exercise, the health risks of obesity, and the benefits of weight loss—a talk I’ve been having with my patients for more than twenty years. But, like the majority of Americans, most of my patients remain overweight.

Afterward, I realized that what my patient wanted was a pill that would make her lose weight. I could have prescribed her one of four drugs currently approved by the F.D.A.: two, phentermine and orlistat, that have been around for more than a decade, and two others, Belviq (lorcaserin) and Qsymia (a combination of phentermine and topiramate), that have recently come onto the market and are the first ever approved for long-term use. (Ian Parker wrote about the F.D.A.’s approval process for new medications in this week’s issue.) The drugs work by suppressing appetite, by increasing metabolism, and by other mechanisms that are not yet fully understood. These new drugs, along with beloranib—which produces more dramatic weight loss than anything currently available but is still undergoing clinical trials—were discussed with great excitement last month by experts and researchers at the international Obesity Week conference in Atlanta.

But I’ve never prescribed diet drugs, and few doctors in my primary-care practice have, either. Donna Ryan, an obesity specialist at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, has found that only a small percentage of the doctors she has surveyed regularly prescribe any of the drugs currently approved by the F.D.A. Sales figures indicate that physicians haven’t embraced the new medications, Qsymia and Belviq, either.

The inauspicious history of diet drugs no doubt contributes to doctors’ reluctance to prescribe them. In the nineteen-forties, when doctors began prescribing amphetamines for weight loss,rates of addiction soared. Then, in the nineties, fen-phen, a popular combination of fenfluramine and phentermine, was pulled from the market when patients developed serious heart defects. Current medications are much safer, but they produce only modest weight loss, in the range of about five to ten per cent, and they do have side effects.

Still, as Ryan pointed out, doctors aren’t always shy about prescribing medications that cause side effects and yield undramatic results. A five to ten per cent weight loss might not thrill patients, or even nudge them out of being overweight or obese, but it can improve diabetes control, blood pressure, cholesterol, sleep apnea, and other complications of obesity. And, although the drugs aren’t covered by Medicare or most states’ Medicaid programs, private insurance coverage of weight-loss drugs has improved and is likely to expand further under theAffordable Care Act, which requires insurers to pay for obesity treatment. So what prevents physicians from prescribing these drugs?

Several leading experts and researchers attending Obesity Week told me that the problem is that, while specialists who study obesity view it as a chronic but treatable disease, primary-care physicians are not fully convinced that they should be treating obesity at all. Even thoughphysicians since Hippocrates have known that excess body fat can cause diseases, the American Medical Association announced that it would recognize obesity itself as a disease only a few months ago. These divergent views on obesity represent one of the widest gulfs of understanding between generalists and specialists in all of medicine.

Lee M. Kaplan, co-director of the Weight Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, thinks that some bias comes from the average physician’s lack of appreciation for the complex physiology of weight homeostasis. Humans have evolved to avoid starvation rather than obesity, and we defend our body mass through an elaborate system involving the brain, the gut, fat cells, and a network of hormones and neurotransmitters, only a fraction of which have been identified. Obesity, Kaplan said, which represents dysfunction of this system, is likely not one disease but dozens.

That one person’s obesity is not like another’s may explain why some people lose a lot of weight with surgery, or a particular diet or drug, and some don’t. Kaplan thinks that if more doctors understood this, they’d view obesity treatment more receptively and realistically. He said, “If I were to say to you, ‘I have this drug that treats cancer,’ and you asked me, ‘What kind of cancer?,’ and I said, ‘All cancers,’ you’d laugh, because you recognize intuitively that cancer is a heterogeneous group of disorders. We’re going to look back on obesity one day and say the same thing.”

Obesity is potentially, in part, a neurological disease. Jeffrey Flier, an endocrinologist and dean of Harvard Medical School, has shown, like others, that repeatedly eating more calories than you burn can damage the hypothalamus, an area of the brain involved in eating and satiety. In other words, Big Gulps, Cinnabons, and Whoppers have altered our brains such that many people—particularly those with a genetic predisposition to obesity—find fattening foods all but impossible to resist once they’ve eaten enough of them. Louis J. Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, explained to me, “With so much calorie-dense food available, the hypothalamic neurons get overloaded and the brain can’t tell how much body fat is already stored. The response is to try to store more fat. So there’s very strong scientific evidence that obesity is not about people lacking willpower.”

But this message has not found its way into society, where obese people are still often considered self-indulgent and lazy, and face widespread discrimination. Several obesity experts told me they’ve encountered doctors who confide that they just didn’t like fat people and don’t enjoy taking care of them. Even doctors who treat obese patients feel stigmatized: “diet doctor” is not a flattering term. Donna Ryan, who switched from oncology to obesity medicine many years ago, recalls her colleagues’ surprise. “I had respect,” she says. “I was treating leukemia!”

George Bray, also of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, thinks that socioeconomic factors play into physicians’ lack of enthusiasm for treating obesity. Bray points to the work ofAdam Drewnowski at the University of Washington, who has shown that obesity is, disproportionately, a disease of poverty. Because of this association, many erroneously see obesity as more of a social condition than a medical one, a condition that simply requires people to try harder. Bray said, “If you believe that obesity would be cured if people just pushed themselves away from the table, then why do you want to prescribe drugs for this non-disease, this ‘moral issue’? I think that belief permeates a lot of the medical field.”

Obesity experts with whom I spoke tended to be more optimistic than other physicians about the possibility that obesity can be treated successfully and that the obesity epidemic will be curbed. They point to exciting new research—for example, the finding that an alteration in gut bacteria, rather than mechanical shrinking of the stomach or intestine, may be what causes weight loss after gastric bypass. This raises the possibility that the benefits of surgery might become available without the surgery itself. They also note that public-health efforts seem to be reducing childhood obesity, even in poor communities. But they remain concerned that despite such promising developments, many physicians still don’t see obesity the way they do: as a serious, often preventable disease that requires intensive and lifelong treatment with a combination of diet, exercise, behavioral modification, surgery, and, potentially, drugs.

Louis Aronne thinks this will change as more physicians enter the field of obesity medicine, the physiology of obesity is better understood, and more effective treatment options become available. He likens the current attitude toward obesity to the prevailing attitude toward mental illness years ago. Aronne remembers, during his medical training, seeing psychotic patients warehoused and sedated, treated as less than human. He predicts that, one day, “some doctors are going to look back at severely obese patients and say, ‘What the hell was I thinking when I didn’t do anything to help them? How wrong could I have been?’ ”

Patients like the woman who asked me to help her lose weight may not have to wait that long. Specialists are now developing programs to aid primary-care physicians in treating obesity more aggressively and effectively. But we’ll have to want to treat it: as Kaplan argues, “Whether you call it a disease or not is not so germane. The root problem is that whatever you call it, nobody’s taking it seriously enough.”

Suzanne Koven is a primary-care doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and writes the column “In Practice” at the Boston Globe.

Photograph by Patrick Allard/REA/Redux.

Health Affairs: Ageing research will deliver best ROI

  • “In the last half-century, major life expectancy gains were driven by finding ways to reduce mortality from fatal diseases. But now disabled life expectancy is rising faster than total life expectancy, leaving the number of years that one can expect to live in good health unchanged, or diminished. If we can age more slowly, we can delay the onset and progression of many disabling disease simultaneously”
  • The study also shows significantly lower and declining returns for continuing the current research ‘disease model’, which seeks to treat fatal diseases independently, rather than tackling the shared, underlying cause of frailty and disability – such as the aging process itself.
  • Indeed, lowering the incidence of cancer by 25% in the next few decades – in line with the most favourable historical trends – would barely improve population health over not doing anything at all, the analysis showed.
  • Further analysis showed the same is true of heart disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. The study shows that, with major advances in cancer treatment or heart disease, a 51-year-old can expect to live about one more year. A modest improvement in delaying aging would double this to two additional years — and those years are much more likely to be spent in good health.
    The increase in healthy years of life would also have an economic benefit of approximately $7.1 trillion over the next five decades, they added.
    “Even a marginal success in slowing aging is going to have a huge impact on health and quality of life,” said corresponding author S. Jay Olshansky of the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois-C hicago. “This is a fundamentally new approach to public health that would attack the underlying risk factors for all fatal and disabling diseases.”
    “We need to begin the research now,” he said. “We don’t know which mechanisms are going to work to actually delay aging, and there are probably a variety of ways this could be accomplished, but we need to decide now that this is worth pursuing.”
  • Several previous studies have already shown how we might age more slowly, they team noted. These have included studies of the genetics of “centenarians” and other long-lived people.
    Attempts to slow the signs of biological aging have also been achieved in animal models, using pharmaceuticals and also dietary interventions such as caloric restriction or supplementation. But until now, no assessment has been made of the costs and health returns on developing therapies for delayed aging, said the research team.

Source: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/10/1698.abstract

Recent scientific advances suggest that slowing the aging process (senescence) is now a realistic goal. Yet most medical research remains focused on combating individual diseases. Using the Future Elderly Model—a microsimulation of the future health and spending of older Americans—we compared optimistic “disease specific” scenarios with a hypothetical “delayed aging” scenario in terms of the scenarios’ impact on longevity, disability, and major entitlement program costs. Delayed aging could increase life expectancy by an additional 2.2 years, most of which would be spent in good health. The economic value of delayed aging is estimated to be $7.1 trillion over fifty years. In contrast, addressing heart disease and cancer separately would yield diminishing improvements in health and longevity by 2060—mainly due to competing risks. Delayed aging would greatly increase entitlement outlays, especially for Social Security. However, these changes could be offset by increasing the Medicare eligibility age and the normal retirement age for Social Security. Overall, greater investment in research to delay aging appears to be a highly efficient way to forestall disease, extend healthy life, and improve public health.

Article: http://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Policy/Is-research-on-delayed-aging-a-better-investment-than-cancer-and-heart-disease

Article PDF: Is research on delayed aging a better investment than cancer and heart disease_

Good data points on health spending

 

Via David More’s blog…

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/09/19/3852140.htm

Full article: ABC Feature Telehealth_ The healthcare and aged care revolution

Australia’s ballooning health spend

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the country spent over $121bn on healthcare between 2009-10. The following year it surpassed $130bn and it’s been rising at six per cent each year – twice the growth rate of GDP.

Healthcare expenditure currently makes up 10 per cent of GDP but analysts Mark Dougan from Frost and Sullivan says that, “At the current rate, in perhaps about ten years or so, it will hit 15 per cent of GDP – mostly from public sources.” He points out that this growth rate is “unsustainable.”

According to South Australia Health’s October 2012 report:

At the time we released the 2007 South Australian Health Care Plan, if SA Health had continued spending at the same rate, then by 2032 the entire State budget will be consumed by Health alone. Our efforts to reduce growth in demand has now pushed this back to 2038. Slowing the growth in demand, however, must be accompanied by providing more efficient services in order to deliver a balanced budget…

Peter Croft from Allocate (healthcare) Software adds, “Most State governments have identified a point in the future where the growth in funding for health is going to consume the entire state budget.”

The problem is that improvements have to come from efficiency gains and not spending cuts. As Stephen Duckett and Cassie McGannon said recently in The Conversation:

Reducing health spending growth will not be easy. As Grattan’s Game-changers report last year showed, Australia already has one of the OECD’s most efficient health systems, in terms of life expectancy achieved for dollars spent. Sweeping cuts to health funding, or shifting costs to consumers, could have serious consequences. Blunt cost-cutting risks reducing health and well-being, and could ultimately lead to higher government costs due to illness, increased health-care needs and lower workforce participation.

What do we spend the money on?

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare published the following:

On an average day in Australia…

  • 342,000 people visit a GP
  • 6,800 people are transported by ambulance; a further 900 are treated but not transported
  • 71,000 km are flown by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and 107 evacuations performed
  • 23,000 people are admitted to hospital (including 5,000 for an elective surgery)
  • 17,000 people visit an emergency department at larger public hospitals

So how much does do these things cost?

Hospital Stays

The Conversation points out:

“The biggest and fastest-growing spending category in health is hospitals – they get almost $18 billion in real terms more than in 2002-03, an increase of over 95%.”

Feros Healthcare puts the cost at $967 per patient per night.


Source: Feros Healthcare

Around 11.8 per cent of all people (2.6 million) had been admitted to hospital in the last 12 months (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Nationally, the average stay is six nights (see diagram)


Source: South Australia’s Health’s Response Oct 2012

So the annual cost of Australian hospital stays is roughly:-

2.6 million Admissions x 6 nights x $967 per night = $15.1bn each year.

Many telehealth proponents state that most of the people in hospitals are there to primarily be monitored. If that is the case, with a reliable internet connection, a number of those patients could be monitored from home (where they’ll recuperate quicker) and that would reduce the cost to less than $10 per day while freeing up beds for other people. In this instance, a hypothetical reduction of just 10% would be worth over $1.5bn per annum on its own.

However, the matter is not undisputed with some doctors adamant that the vast majority of patients that are being monitored in hospital are there because they still require hospital care. There are certainly many anecdotal examples of long-term hospital residents who could be monitored from home. However, the limited available figures don’t highlight their numbers as significant. This report from 2006-07 lists the main reasons for which patients were hospitalised (along with the costs of doing so). Many conditions don’t lend themselves to home monitoring.

In the spirit of open journalism, if you have any relevant personal experiences on this matter, please leave them in the comments below.