When it comes to rooting out wasteful spending in federal entitlement programs, attention has long focused on preventing beneficiaries from gaming the system.

A new Stanford study identifies a fresh cause for concern: the for-profit companies that the U.S. government increasingly tasks with providing benefits to Americans who are often poor, elderly or both.

In a new working paper, Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of medicine, finds that outsourcing public assistance services to third parties can lead to unanticipated effects on prices as well as on which beneficiaries gain the most from public dollars.

That’s because companies are in the business of making money. And when they know which of their consumers are likely to get certain levels of public support, they will try to use this information to maximize their profits, according to the research published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Polyakova shows that when companies act in their self-interest, unforeseen inequities and inefficiencies can arise that may hurt some consumers while helping others. At a time when governments in the United States and around the world are increasingly turning to the private sector to provide public benefits — namely in health care and in education — Polyakova says policymakers need to better understand how these intermediaries are affecting welfare programs.

“Policymakers have to be more careful about introducing intermediaries into public services,” says Polyakova, who is a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), and teaches at the Stanford School of Medicine. She is also a core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy. “They may want to revisit how they think about outsourcing when research is showing that there are unintended consequences that may be positive or negative.”

Health Insurance Pricing under the Microscope

Intermediaries are central to a number of public services where the U.S. government provides subsidies to consumers, often based on income, age or employment status. Prominent examples include privately-managed Medicare Advantage Plans, drug benefits under Medicare Plan D, and charter schools in secondary education.

According to Polyakova, most research into wasteful spending within government subsidies has focused on consumers and how they try to trick the system by, for example, hiding income to qualify for a tax credit or cash assistance. Governments, though imperfect, have long been seen as benign players.

The increasing involvement of for-profit companies, she says, shows there’s a need to closely examine what’s happening on the supply side of public welfare.

To do that, Polyakova found an ideal setting: the federal health insurance marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Most consumers who shop for coverage through www.healthcare.gov receive a subsidy in the form of a tax credit that covers all or part of their insurance premium. The amount of their tax credit is tied to their household income.

The dollars at stake are significant. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2019 the federal government will pay $560 billion in subsidies for privately-provided health insurance, including the spending on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces as well as other similarly designed programs. That figure is expected to hit $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

The Neighborhood Effect

Polyakova and her co-author — Stephen Ryan of Washington University’s Olin Business School — analyzed data from 2017 covering more than 9 million enrollees across some 2,570 counties around the country. They find that the presence of an intermediary significantly impacts insurance prices and key measures economists use to calculate the effects of a policy beyond a given benefit’s face value.

Specifically, they show that health insurance companies will have an incentive to raise premiums in markets where more consumers receive the higher tax credit because their incomes are low and the government is required to subsidize them.

On the flip side, insurers will charge lower prices in places where such subsidized consumers are less willing to buy coverage if they think it costs too much.

To illustrate the unintended consequences of the insurers’ actions, the researchers point out that, in the first instance where prices increase, consumers with incomes that are slightly higher than other community members will end up paying more for the same coverage. Under the second scenario, consumers who don’t qualify for the tax credit because their incomes are too high benefit from the lower premiums aimed at nearby residents.

“The price you pay for insurance will depend on who your neighbors are,” says Polyakova. “If you live near people who are poorer than you, you will be affected differently than if you live near people who are richer than you.”

Change the subsidy, change the calculation

Like with financial aid, tax credits for insurance coverage are calculated based on consumer income. But there is another type of subsidy that policymakers could use — flat vouchers, in which all members of a market receive the same benefit regardless of income, age or some other characteristic. For their research, Polyakova and Ryan also analyze how flat vouchers that only vary by age, but not by income, would hypothetically alter private health insurance prices in the federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Here, too, the scholars find different impacts on different types of consumers whether the subsidy is based on income or delivered as a flat voucher.

The analyses, says Polyakova, drive home the point that policymakers need to understand that there are trade-offs to relying on for-profit companies to provide government services and that the type of subsidy offered can alter how they calculate prices in disparate ways.

“There’s nothing wrong with companies trying to maximize their profits,” says Polyakova. “But sophisticated policymakers need to understand what happens when private markets get involved.”

Global warming and more days of extreme heat are exacerbating the health risks of pregnancy, particularly among African-American women, according to new Stanford-led research.

The maternal mortality rate among all women in the United States is already the worst of any industrialized nation. And black women are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related problems than white women.

“It is truly a crisis that in America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, more women are dying from pregnancy or childbirth complications than in any other developed country,” said Maya Rossin-Slater, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

In a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Rossin-Slater and two other health economists underscore how little research is out there about the impact of rising temperatures on the health of mothers and their newborns.

Pregnant women, for example, are not able to regulate body temperature as efficiently as non-pregnant individuals due to the physiological changes they undergo during gestation. Heat exposure can alter blood flow in the placenta, which can weaken the placenta and lead to complications. And high heat can lead to other pregnancy complications, such as hypertension, preeclampsia and prolonged premature rupture of membranes.

“All of these issues can translate into women needing to be hospitalized during pregnancy and experiencing complications during childbirth,” wrote Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health research and policy at Stanford Medicine. Her co-authors are Jiyoon Kim, assistant professor of economics at Elon University, and Ajin Lee, an assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University.

The researchers said most of the discussion about maternal health focuses on the health-care system, but that other determinants of poor maternal health and racial disparities are much less understood, particularly when it comes to how the environment is impacting pregnancy.

So they launched what they believe is the first study to identify the causal effects of prenatal exposures to extreme temperatures on the health of the mothers themselves.

As the Earth Warms, So Does Exposure to Extreme Heat

Their paper focuses on an environmental factor that is becoming increasingly relevant due to the growing consensus that climate change is contributing to a gradual warming of the earth: exposure to extreme heat.

The researchers studied the effects of exposure to extreme temperatures during pregnancy on maternal and child hospitalizations, using inpatient discharge records from three U.S. states with different climates: Arizona, New York and Washington. Their data comes from the State Inpatient Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, including 2.7 million inpatient records of 2.7 million infants and 2.2 million mothers in those three states.

And to measure temperature exposure, the researchers obtained data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

For every county in their data, the researchers calculated the average temperature for every month. Then for every given day in a specific month in that county, they looked at the historic average for how high or low that day’s temperature was relative to the overall temperature in that month in that county.

For example, a 90-degree day in Arizona in September would not be classified as extreme heat since it’s relatively common. But a 90-degree day in New York would be, since temperatures that high are much less common. They classified “extreme heat” as a given day when the temperature is more than three standard deviations (3SD) above that historic county mean.

Then, they compared the outcomes of women who are of the same race giving birth in the same county and calendar month, but in different years. These women are likely similar in terms of their demographics and socioeconomic status, but may be exposed to different temperatures during pregnancy. For example, consider a black woman giving birth in November 2011 in Queens County, New York, and a black woman giving birth in November 2012 in the same county. If there were a heat wave in Queens in the August 2012, then the latter woman is exposed to more extreme heat during pregnancy than the former. 

The economists found that each additional day with heat that is at least 3SDs — or substantially higher than the historic county-month average — during the second trimester of pregnancy increases the likelihood that a newborn is diagnosed with dehydration by .008 percentage points.

“Our results provide new estimates of the health costs of climate change and identify environmental drivers of the black-white maternal health gap,” they wrote. “Understanding the health consequences of this increase in extreme heat is critical information for discussions about the costs of climate change and the possible benefits of mitigating policies.”

The researchers found that each additional day of extreme heat exposure during pregnancy increases black women’s likelihood of hospitalization during pregnancy. Since black women on average are exposed to more extreme heat than white women — due to different residence patterns and access to mitigating technologies like air conditioning — extreme heat may contribute to exacerbating the already large gap in maternal health between black and white women.

Detrimental Consequences of Rising Temperatures

Scientists predict global average temperatures will continue to rise over the next 50 to 100 years as greenhouse gases continue to trap more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year warned that nations worldwide must quickly reduce fossil fuel use to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5°C by 2050. 

The panel also said the number of days with mean temperatures above 32°C in the average American county is forecasted to increase from about 1 to 43 days per year by 2070-2099.

That could have detrimental consequences for babies and mothers alike.

“Overall, our findings on infant health suggest that exposure to extreme heat during the second trimester increases the likelihood of the baby being dehydrated at the time of birth,” the researchers wrote. “This, in turn, appears to increase the likelihood of subsequent readmission to the hospital many months later for causes linked to dehydration.”

And these impacts are typically missed when researchers only measure infant health using more standard variables, such as birth weight.

The authors note dehydration is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in children. Studies show that children under 5 years old who have an average of two episodes of gastroenteritis associated with dehydration per year leads to 2 to 3 million pediatric office visits and accounts for 10% of all pediatric hospital admissions in the United States. 

Experts believe black women are three- to four-times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes due to lack of access to and the poor quality of health care, as well as clinicians not monitoring black women as closely — or actually dismissing their symptoms altogether.

“The fact that the adverse impacts on health during pregnancy are larger for black than for white mothers suggests that climate change may exacerbate the already large racial gap in maternal health,” the researchers said.

I always find it hard to believe so many people are living in poverty: some 39.7 million Americans, or 12.3% of the population. It’s such a wealthy country, yet so many are poor.

In a twist that could be interpreted as good news — it doesn’t seem fair to say there is anything positive about living in poverty — I recently learned that older, low-income Americans tend to be healthier if they live in more affluent areas of the country.

Not only are they healthier, but their physical well-being is better across the board with a lower prevalence of dozens of chronic conditions, particularly if they live in rural communities. This, despite their income having less purchasing power in those better-resourced neighborhoods.

This was the key finding in new research published by Stanford Health Policy’s Maria Polyakova in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

While recent studies have reported that low-income adults living in more affluent areas of the United States have longer life expectancies, less has been known about the relationship between the affluence of a geographic area and morbidity of the low-income population.

“I was interested in figuring out whether the same relationship holds for morbidity: Are poorer people less sick in richer areas?” Polyakova told me. “And if so, are there any specific conditions that drive these differences that could be the target for policy-making?”

So Polyakova, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and her co-author, Lynn M. Hua at the University of Pennsylvania, set out to evaluate the association between chronic conditions among low-income, older adults and the economic affluence of a local area. 

They focused on nearly 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 aged 66 to 100 years old who received low-income support under Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program for Medicare enrollees. They investigated the prevalence of 48 chronic conditions among these patients, including common chronic conditions such as hypertension, depression, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. They found the presence of all conditions is highly correlated: places, where the poor tend to have a high prevalence of one disease, are likely to have a high prevalence of all 48 conditions.

“While we cannot ascertain a causal relationship, our results clearly point towards the importance of further understanding why the socioeconomic environment of low-income, older adults is so tightly linked to such a broad measure of health,” the researchers wrote. 

The results, they said, were broadly consistent with the extensive literature on the social determinants of health. But their work takes that literature even further.

“Our study extends this research by providing measures of the prevalence of chronic conditions among low-income, older adults for a large national sample of the U.S. population,” Polyakova said. 

The researchers used clinical, rather than self-reported measures of diagnoses and reported this group’s variation in morbidity across local areas of the country, rather than nationally. 

“Our results raise the bar for researchers who are trying to find out what factors drive health disparities in the U.S.; these factors would have to be able to explain the differences in nearly 50 condition,” Polyakova said.

The study supported by the National Institute on Aging came to three key conclusions:

1. The health of low-income, older adults in the United States varies substantially across local geographic regions, and this variation cannot be attributed to one specific disease or a narrow set of conditions. 
2. Consistent with their original hypothesis, they found that more affluent local areas of the country have a lower prevalence of chronic conditions in the low-income, older adult population.
3. The researchers found that low-income, older adults have better health in rural areas of the country.

I wondered why these poor, older adults do particularly well in rural communities, as those regions often lack easy access to high-quality health care and state-of-the-art hospitals.

“We don’t know the exact answer, but there is a general sense that differences in the social fabric and lifestyle in rural areas — could contribute to this pattern,” Polyakova told me. “It appears that better health in these areas persists, despite challenges of accessing formal care.”

A task force of national health experts has released a draft recommendation to screen all adults 18 to 79 years for the hepatitis C virus (HCV), noting the opioid epidemic has fueled what has become the most common chronic bloodborne pathogen in the United States.

Cases of acute HCV have increased 3.5-fold over the last decade, particularly among young, white, injection drug users who live in rural areas. Women aged 15 to 44 have also been hit hard by the virus that is spread through contaminated blood.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which makes recommendations followed by primary care clinicians nationwide, has until now recommended that people who are at high risk be tested for hepatitis C, as well as “baby boomers” born between 1945 and 1965.

“Unfortunately, HCV now affects a broader age range than previously with three times as many new infections per year,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, chair of the independent, voluntary panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine.

The Task Force now recommends that clinicians encourage all their adult patients, even those with no symptoms or known liver disease, get a blood test for the virus. Pregnant women should also be screened; from 2009 to 2014, the prevalence of HCV infection among women giving birth has nearly doubled.

“The explosive growth in HCV has been fueled by the opioid epidemic, with the spread of HCV into younger populations,” said Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. “HCV now kills more Americans than all other reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV.”

An estimated 4.1 million people in the United States are carrying HCV antibodies; about 2.4 million are living with the virus, according to the Task Force. The HCV infection becomes chronic in 75% to 85% of cases and some of those people develop symptoms such as chronic fatigue and depression, and liver diseases that can range from cirrhosis to liver cancer.

Approximately one-third of people ages 18 to 30 who inject drugs are infected with the virus; 70% to 90% of older injection-drug users are infected.

There currently is no vaccine for hepatitis C although research in the development of a vaccine is underway. But there are effective oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications that can clear the virus from the body, particularly if caught early.

“The good news is that treatment for HCV is far better, and far better tolerated than in the past, offering a cure to most people,” Owens said. “Early identification of HCV is important to prevent long-term complications of HCV including liver failure, liver cancer, and death.”

The Task Force said in a release that there are several key research gaps that could inform the benefit of screening for HCV infection:

1. ·     Research is needed on the yield of repeat vs. one-time screening for HCV.
2. ·     Research is needed to identify labor management practices and treatment of HCV infection prior to pregnancy to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission.
3. ·     Trials and cohort studies that measure effects on quality of life, function, and extrahepatic effects of HCV infection (such as renal function, cardiovascular effects or diabetes) would be helpful for evaluating the impact of DAA regimens on short-term health outcomes.
4. ·     Additional studies are needed to examine the epidemiology of HCV infection and the effectiveness of DAA regimens in adolescents.

A U.S. foreign policy that cuts money to nongovernmental organizations performing or promoting abortions abroad has actually led to an increase in abortions, according to Stanford researchers who have conducted the most comprehensive academic study of the policy’s impact.

Eran Bendavid and Grant Miller — both associate professors at Stanford University School of Medicine and core faculty members at Stanford Health Policy — and doctoral candidate Nina Brooks find that abortions increased among women living in African countries where NGOs, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, were most vulnerable to the policy’s requirements.

The policy, widely known as the Mexico City Policy, explicitly prohibits U.S. foreign aid from flowing to any NGO that will not abide by the policy’s main condition: no performing or discussing abortion as a method of family planning, even if just in the form of education or counseling.

The policy has been a political hot potato since its inception. Enacted under Ronald Reagan in 1984, it’s been enforced by subsequent Republican administrations while Democrats in the White House revoked the policy within days of taking office.

The study by Brooks, Bendavid and Miller, published June 27 in The Lancet Global Health, looked at the policy’s effects in more than two dozen African countries over a span of 20 years under three presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It finds that, when the policy was in place during the Bush years, abortions were 40 percent higher relative to the Clinton and Obama administrations.

When the policy was suspended during Obama’s two terms, the research shows that the upward trend in abortion rates reversed.

“Our research suggests that a policy that is supported by taxpayers ostensibly wishing to drive down abortion rates worldwide does the opposite,” said Bendavid, a faculty affiliate of the Stanford King Center on Global Development, which is part of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

A key reason for the uptick in abortions is that many NGOs affected by the policy also provide contraceptives – and funding cuts mean birth control is harder to get, said Brooks.

“By undercutting the ability to supply modern contraceptives, the unintended consequence is that abortion rates increase,” she said.

And the policy’s scope has expanded under the Trump administration. While it originally restricted aid directed only toward providing family planning and reproductive health services, President Trump has extended the policy to cover any group engaged in global health, including organizations providing services for HIV or child health – not just family planning.

Groundbreaking Research

The stakes are high. America is the world’s largest provider of development assistance and spent about $7 billion on international health aid in 2017. Many women in sub-Saharan Africa depend on this aid for contraceptives.

In sub-Saharan Africa, NGOs are often primary providers of family planning services. Two of the world’s largest family planning organizations – International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International – have forfeited large sums of U.S. cash for refusing to comply with the policy, according to news reports.

The research findings were based on records of nearly 750,000 women in 26 sub-Saharan African countries from 1995 to 2014. When the policy was in effect under George W. Bush, contraceptive use fell by 14 percent, pregnancies rose by 12 percent and abortions rose by 40 percent relative to the Clinton and subsequent Obama years – an impact sharply timed with the policy and in proportion to the importance of foreign assistance across sub-Saharan Africa.

The paper is the second study of the rule’s impact by Bendavid and Miller, who are both faculty members of Stanford Health Policy. The research is also one of the very few evidence-based analyses of the policy.

Their earlier research, the first quantitative, large-scale effort to examine the policy’s impacts, looked at a smaller set of African countries during the Clinton and Bush administrations and also found an increase in abortion rates when the policy was enacted in 2001.

“Our latest study strengthened our earlier findings because we were able to look at what happens when the rule was turned off, then on, and then off again,” said Bendavid, referring to the policy’s whipsawing under Clinton, Bush and then Obama.

Miller, who is the director of the King Center and a SIEPR senior fellow, says the team’s research reveals a deeply flawed policy.

“We set out to provide the best and most rigorous evidence on the consequences of this policy,” he said. “What we found is a clear-cut case of government action that everyone on all sides of the abortion debate should agree is not desirable.”

Signs of a Global Pushback

Brooks also notes that their findings may underestimate the rule’s full impact.

“The excess abortions performed due to the policy are more likely to be performed unsafely, potentially harming women beyond pregnancy terminations,” she said.

Under Trump, the international response to U.S. funding cuts has shifted. Norway, Canada and several other countries have pledged to increase funding of international NGOs affected by the policy – though not by enough to cover the expected shortfall, says Miller.

“This shows us,” he said, “that despite the intense partisanship in the U.S. over the rule and its implementation, there are ways that policymakers around the world can offset its effects – by ensuring higher levels of family planning funding, for example.”

Asia Health Policy Program Director Karen Eggleston and colleagues examine China’s progress in enhancing financial protection under its social health insurance to achieve universal health coverage.

In 2009, China launched comprehensive health system reforms to address challenges such as increasing rates of non-communicable diseases and population aging, problems with health financing and healthcare delivery, and overall growing health expectations of its people. Promoting universal health coverage by building a social health insurance system was a central pillar of the reforms.

After a decade of system reforms, has the Chinese government made good on its commitment to bolster universal health coverage? In a new article published in a BMJ collection, a team of four co-authors including Karen Eggleston, APARC’s deputy director and director of the Asia Health Policy Program, evaluates China’s progress towards enhancing financial protection of social health insurance and identifies the main gaps that need to be filled to achieve universal health coverage. Their article is part of a special BMJ collection with Peking University that marks the tenth anniversary of China’s health system reforms by analyzing their accomplishments and challenges ahead.

The 2009 reforms aimed to cover the entire Chinese population with one of three (since 2012 one of two) basic social health schemes. To provide added financial protection to patients with critical illnesses, catastrophic medical insurance was initially launched in 2012 and implemented nationally in 2015. Eggleston and her co-authors determine that the expansion of health insurance has had several major successes. First, it improved access to and use of healthcare. In 2011, China achieved near-universal health insurance coverage, with more than 95% of the Chinese population covered by health insurance. Moreover, the annual inpatient hospital admission rate increased from 3.6% in 2003 to 17.6% in 2017, and admission rates for outpatient services were much higher than the global average.

Second, the expansion of health insurance coverage reduced the share of out-of-pocket heath expenses in total health expenditure, thus raising the level of financial protection. Third, catastrophic medical insurance was also effective in supplementing the basic social health insurance schemes and provided extra financial protection to a range of vulnerable groups. By 2017, more than a billion people in China were covered by such insurance.

However, much remains to be done. Out-of-pocket health expenditures remain fairly high and are one of the main reasons for catastrophic health expenses and low financial protection in China, which disproportionately affect deprived populations. Catastrophic medical insurance currently does not target underprivileged people, while medical aid is relatively small in scale and covers only a minority of patients with catastrophic health expenses.

Eggleston and her colleagues conclude that the Chinese government should focus on underprivileged populations within the current insurance system and enhance their financial protection as an important element of targeted poverty alleviation. Such targeting, the researchers emphasize, requires a clear and integrated policy encompassing the basic social health insurance schemes, catastrophic medical insurance, medical aid, and improved healthcare efficiency.

Type 2 diabetes has become a major public health problem in South Asia in recent decades. The region is now home to an estimated 84 million people suffering from diabetes—approximately one-fifth of the world’s 451 million adults with diabetes—a number that is expected to rise by 78% by 2045. Even more concerning, across South Asia the disease burden increasingly occurs in the most productive midlife period. Among Indians, for example, diabetes is estimated to occur on average 10 years earlier than their western counterparts, and almost half of Indian patients with type 2 diabetes are diagnosed before age 40.

How do South Asian health system influence diabetes care? What is the magnitude of the economic impact of diabetes in South Asia? And what can be done to mitigate that economic burden? These are some of the questions that a team of researchers, including Karen Eggleston, APARC’s deputy director and director of the Asia Health Policy Program, set out to answer in a new study published in the journal Current Diabetes Reports.

Eggleston co-authored the study with Kavita Singh of the Public Health Foundation of India and the Centre for Chronic Disease Control in New Delhi, and with M. Venkat Narayan, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology and Director of the Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University. They find that diabetes-related complications lead to enormous treatment costs, causing catastrophic medical spending and illness-induced poverty for many households.

The new study is related to a broader research project led by Eggleston, entitled Net Value in Diabetes Management, that compares health care use, medical spending, and clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes as a lens for understanding the economics of caring for patients with complicated chronic diseases across diverse health systems. This international collaborative research convenes teams of clinicians and health economists in ten countries (and growing) across Asia, as well as the United States and The Netherlands. Together, they analyze big data—detailed, longitudinal patient-level information for large samples from each country, including millions of records of clinical encounters, health-check-up, and medical spending—to compare the health care use and patient outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes in their health systems.

In the new publication, Eggleston and her co-authors first introduce several unique features that characterize the type 2 diabetes epidemic in South Asia. These include a high risk of developing diabetes even at lower levels of body mass index than observed among western populations; a high prevalence of glucose intolerance, low levels of HDL cholesterol, and high levels of triglycerides; a relationship between impaired fetal nutrition, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk; and the likelihood of rapid urbanization impacting the diabetes burden of the wealthy and the underprivileged differently.

Furthermore, South Asian countries face difficult challenges in delivering diabetes care. The health sector in the region has little organized financing, leading to heavy out-of-pocket spending by patients. Limited availability and affordability of anti-diabetic drugs is a major driver of lower use of such medicines. These factors, combined with a general lack of health care professionals and infrastructural resources and low quality of healthcare governance, all contribute to poor health outcomes.

Eggleston and her co-authors assess the current literature on the economic impact of diabetes in South Asia. They show that, compared with the high prevalence of diabetes in South Asian countries, the total health spending as a percentage of GDP in the region has remained low and fairly constant (3-4% in most countries) over the last two decades, with less than 1% of GDP spent on healthcare by the government, and a miniscule 0.2% by pre-paid private insurance, resulting in a large proportion of out-of-pocket healthcare spending. The financial burden of diabetes and its complications can therefore have catastrophic implications for households that are often driven to sacrifice disastrous proportions of their income to cover treatment costs.

Diabetes causes premature mortality, high morbidity, and disability. To mitigate the economic and social welfare burden of the disease, the researchers conclude, policymakers in South Asia must take urgent action “to increase investment in evaluating cost-effective strategies to manage diabetes and preventative approaches.” The team offers a set of policy recommendations, including monitoring the economic burden of diabetes and the quality of care; focusing on the screening and prevention of diabetes and its risk factors; strengthening government health facilities and primary care services; expanding access to affordable, essential medicines, and more.

​

Fourteen years ago, Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens and colleagues published a cost-effectiveness analysis that would change the face of HIV prevention. Their landmark study in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that expanding HIV screening would increase life expectancy and curb transmission of the disease — and was cost effective in virtually all health-care settings.

Not long after their model-based results were published, their findings became key evidence in the decision to expand screening by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Their work has been used in HIV screening guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — which Owens now chairs — the American College of Physicians and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among others.

Owens and his Stanford colleague Margaret Brandeau, professor of management science and engineering, have led this team of decision scientists who have been at the forefront of developing scientific models for the screening and prevention of HIV for two decades now. This modeling team — which also includes colleagues from UCSF and Yale — has published nearly 250 peer-reviewed studies and is one of the most experienced and respected in the world.

But today, the opioid epidemic is threatening the hard-fought gains in the prevention and control of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In support of their continued work to address the opioid epidemic, Owens received a highly prestigious MERIT award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),which provides up to 10 years of funding for the team.

“We are extremely grateful to NIDA for this support and to our colleague at NIDA, Dr. Peter Hartsock, who has worked with us for over 20 years to mitigate the harms from HIV and HCV,” said Owens.

Image

The team will now turn its sights on the complex interplay of the opioid epidemic, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission. The transmission of HCV has been fueled by the opioid epidemic, and HCV now kills more Americans than all other infectious diseases combined.  

“The unfolding opioid epidemic is a defining challenge for the public health and medical systems in the United States,” Owens, the principal investigator of the team, and his colleagues wrote in their grant proposal. “The reversal of life expectancy growth in the demographic groups most affected by the opioid epidemic represents the aggregation of a complex web of harmful public health and population trends, including a rise in overdoses, suicides, mental health afflictions, economic disadvantages, and infectious disease outbreaks.”

Indeed, for the first time since the 1960s, the U.S. life expectancy has contracted for the second year in a row; drug overdoses have been the leading cause of death for Americans under age 50, with an estimated two-thirds of those deaths resulting from opioids.

Since the last renewal of their NIDA-funding grant in 2013, the team has watched the dramatic rise of opioid overuse, injection drug use, and overdose become a national public health crisis, with more than 60,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States reported by the CDC.

“The growing use of needle-based opioids increases the likelihood of accelerating HIV and HCV transmission,” said co-investigator Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an associate professor of medicine and core faculty at Stanford Health Policy. “Identifying the best combination of approaches to reduce HIV and HCV transmissions stemming from the opioid epidemic is of critical public health importance.”

The other co-investigators on the team of the project, “Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug Abuse,” are:

1. Eran Bendavid, an infectious diseases physician and associate professor of medicine at Stanford who is another a seasoned HIV modeler and outcomes expert;
2. Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford and a former senior policy advisor in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
3. David Paltiel, a Yale School of Public Health professor who pioneered policy options for mitigating the impact of HIV in the United States and abroad;
4. Gregg Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale and a 2018 MacArthur Foundation Fellow who will focus on developing new algorithms to detect and predict opioid-related outbreaks of HIV and HCV;
5. James Kahn of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics and an expert on the individual and population impact of prevention and treatment for HIV, HCV and opioid use.

The End of AIDS? 

Toward 2012, a series of scientific advances led to calls for “the end of AIDS.” The two big factors were the cost of the “triple cocktail” of antiretrovirals plunging in developing countries and then huge donations from wealthy countries began pouring in to fight the disease.

Yet the researchers say successes have been too few and that the incidence of HIV remains far too high. About 40 million people were living with HIV around the world in 2017; an estimated 940,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses that same year.

The year 2015 marked the first time in two decades that the number of HIV diagnoses tied to opioids increased.

"Although it was started by prescription opioid overprescribing, the epidemic has evolved to include significant injection opioid use which is now threatening to significantly increase the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C,” said Humphreys.

The most visible example of an opioid-related HIV outbreak took place in Scott County, IN, in 2014-2015. A single infection introduced into the community resulted in nearly 200 new HIV cases within six months, largely related to oxymorphone injections. In 2017 and again in March 2018, two additional substantial outbreaks occurred in Scott County, likely linked to both risky sex and needle sharing. 

In addition, the CDC has identified 220 counties in 26 states that are uniquely vulnerable to HIV and HCV outbreaks related to opioid injections.

Image

“Developing models that forecast high-risk areas for HIV and HCV is essential for aligning surveillance and public health interventions with risk,” said Brandeau, a leader in designing models for the prevention of HIV and hepatitis, especially in drug abuse disorders.

There have also been striking increases in the injection of opioids and heroin that are closely linked to the spread of viral hepatitis. In the demographic areas most affected by opioids, the researchers found, diagnoses of acute hepatitis have more than quadrupled — reversing trends of the previous decade. And in the country as a whole, the number of new HCV cases has nearly tripled since 2010. 

“For any type of contact with an infected source such as a dirty needle, or even cocaine straws, HCV is by far the most rapidly transmissible of the blood-borne infections,” said Bendavid. “One of the challenging issues with hepatitis C is that its major health manifestations do not appear for many years after infection."

What’s the Plan? 

In the next five years, the team intends to evaluate how strategies to prevent and mitigate the harms of opioid use can decrease the spread of HIV and HCV and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality from opioid use. They have four specific goals: 

1. Model the effect of the opioid epidemic on transmission of HIV and HCV.
2. Model the epidemiological and population impacts of individual strategies to prevent and mitigate the harms of opioids and drug injection on HIV and HCV outcomes by evaluating prevention strategies;
3. Model the epidemiologic and population impact of portfoliosof strategies to mitigate the harms of opioid use and drug injection on HIV and HCV outcomes;
4. And model the impact of barriers to implementation of effective strategies to reduce the harms of opioid use on HIV and HCV.

“We will perform novel analyses assessing intervention impacts singly and in combination assessing outcomes for HIV, HCV and opioid use disorder,” the researchers wrote in their grant proposal.

Then, the researcher will model new methods for building complex multi-intervention and multi-disease models and developing adaptive testing algorithms for identifying outbreaks.

Finally, the team intends to assess the barriers and intervention approaches “that more realistically reflect implementation issues than current models and hence identify resource needs for system planning.”

Image

Marcella Alsan and Marianne Wanamaker are recipients of this year’s prestigious Arrow Award from the International Health Economics Association for research that shows the health of African-American men was adversely impacted by the Tuskegee syphilis study of the early 20th century.

The annual award recognizes excellence in the field of health economics and is named after the late Kenneth J. Arrow, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and mathematician. He was a Stanford Health Policy fellow and senior fellow by courtesy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He was also a senior fellow, emeritus, at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

The IHEA awarded the 27th annual Arrow Award to Alsan, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, a senior fellow at FSI and SIEPR, and co-author Wanamaker of the University of Tennessee for their paper, “Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men” published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

The infamous Tuskegee study began in 1932 when the U.S. Public Health Service began following approximately 600 African-American men, some of whom had syphilis, for the stated purpose of understanding the natural history of the disease. The government willingly withheld treatment even after penicillin became an established magic bullet for treating the illness. 

The medical doctors and staff of the CDC followed the men for four decades, until ultimately the study was halted in 1972 when it was brought to the attention of the media by law student Peter Buxtun.

As noted in this story about the research, Alsan and Wanamaker found that the public disclosure of the study in 1972 was associated with an increase in medical mistrust and mortality among African-American men in the immediate aftermath of the revelation.

“The award is an immense honor for both Marianne and me. First, it sheds light on the importance of history for understanding health disparities. Second, it reaffirms the “expected behavior of the physician” that Professor Arrow eloquently described in his seminal 1963 paper on the distinctive features of the market for medical care and the externalities associated with deviating from those expectations.”

African-American men today have the worst health outcomes of all major ethnic, racial and demographic groups in the United States. Life expectancy for black men at age 45 is three years less than their white male peers, and five years less than for black women.

When their working paper was first published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, it became part of the national discussion about the lasting impact of the Tuskegee study.

“The story that Alsan and Wanamaker uncovered is even deeper than the direct effects of the Tuskegee Study,” wrote Vann R. Newkirk II in The Atlantic. “Their research helps validate the anecdotal experiences of physicians, historians, and public health workers in black communities and gives new power to them.”