Information

You are currently browsing the archive for the Information category.

How do doctors know which drugs to give to which patients?  Of course there are clinical trials giving the relative efficacy of each drug.  With less than perfect adherence, however, clinical trials may not accurately predict a drug’s efficacy or the potential side effects.

A paper by  Chintadunta, Jiang and Jin (2008) look at two types of physician learning about pharmaceuticals: learning across patients and learning within patients.  Across patient learning occurs when the physician learns about the average quality of a drug.  Physicians figure out which drugs are best suited for individual patients through within-patient learning.

The authors look at physician learning in the setting of Cox-2 Inhibitors:

Between 1998 and 2001, the FDA approved three Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) Inhibitors: Celebrex (Dec. 1998), Vioxx (May. 1999), and Bextra (Nov. 2001). All of them were heavily advertised as safer alternatives to then existing pain killers. By September 2004, the class had more than 10 million patients, annual sales had reached $6 billion in 2003, and total advertising dollars spent in 2003 were as high as $400 million. After a clinical trial associated Vioxx with severe cardiovascular (CV) risks, Merck withdrew the blockbuster drug in September 2004. CV risks and enhanced concerns on skin irritation led to the withdrawal of Bextra in April 2005. As of today, Celebrex is the only Cox-2 Inhibitor remaining on the market, with warnings added in April 2005.

Data and Methods

The authors use data from four sources to identify physician learning: 

  1. patient-level prescription and satisfaction data from the IPSOS patient diary database (IPSOS-PD), 
  2. monthly advertising expenditures obtained from the New Product Spectra (NPS) database, 
  3. the number of news articles covering Cox-2s derived from Lexis-Nexis for the period 1999 to 2005, and
  4. the number of academic articles covering Cox-2s from Medline from 1999 to 2005. 

Patient level satisfaction is importance because the more satisfied a patient is with the prescription, the less likely the physician will decide to switch brands.  Physician learns which brands are well-suited to which type of patients.  Advertising, media coverage and academic articles all play a roll in across-patient learning.  

The authors use a Bayesian model to identify learning.  The authors assume each physician has a prior about the relative efficacy and safety of each of the Cox-2 Inhibitors.  Patient satisfaction, advertising, media coverage, and academic articles all will update the posterior probabilities.  

The utility of each of patient, p, from using each drug, j, at time, t, is:

  • Upjt = β0j + βsE(satis)jt + βxjXpt + βzZjtpjt

The patient’s utility depends on a drug specific constant, the patient’s average satisfaction rating up to that date, patient specific factors, X, and drug specific information, Z.

Results

The authors find that there is significant physician learning based on the evolution of patient satisfaction measures.  Other types of information seem to have less of an effect on physician prescribing behavior.  Physicians hold strong priors which leads to slow updating.

Interestingly, “News articles have a positive influence on prescriptions, no matter whether these titles sound negative or non-negative. This suggests that the major role of news articles is informing doctors/patients of the existence of Cox-2s, rather than revealing the quality of Cox-2s…In contrast, a medical article about Cox-2s has a significant negative impact on prescription sales, even if its title and abstract are non-negative.”

Thus, the authors find that doctors learn more within-patient than across patient.  

FDA updates have no impact on physician behavior.  How can this be?  By the time the FDA issues a warning on the risks of the potential risk of different drugs, there almost always have been academic articles published on these issues.  This is not to say that the FDA updates are useless, only that they often come after the academic research has already taken place and the physicians have already updated their priors.

For policy makers, the conclusions of this study may be worrisome for proponents of evidenced based medicine.  Currently, physician learning from new information is very slow.  Secondly, physicians seem to focus on tailoring treatments to individual patients rather than updating whether or not the treatment is worthwhile in the first place. 

Tags: , ,

One of the perennial questions of interest for health services researchers how to pay for health care.  A paper by Chalkley and McVicar (2008) examines this question in the contest of a reform in Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

“After 1990 hospitals, which had previously been under the direct control of Health Authorities, could apply for NHS Trust status whereby they would be given discretion over employment, remuneration scales and the disposal of assets. This discretion was subject to limits and reservations and could ultimately be revoked if the appropriate authority, in this case the Secretary of State for Health, deemed their actions to be against the ‘public interest’.”

There are three types of payment contracts between the NHS and health authorities.  The first is a block contract where hospitals receive a flat contract to care for a patient population regardless of the actual care given.  The second contract is a cost-per-case contract where the hospital is paid based on the cost of the medical services supplied.  Volume contracts similarly base payment on the quantity of care provided.  The final contract is a sophisticated block contract.   This is similar to the simple block contract but requires the NHS to monitor the hosptials to ensure that they are providing the required care.

The authors offer 4 conjectures of when different contracts will be adopted.  When contracts will be adopted depends on 3 characteristics: variability in cost, variability in volume and easy of observing patient treatment.

  1. When variability in cost and volume is small or variability of cost is small and volume is easily observable]then block contracts will be favored.
  2. When monitoring costs are low, variability of volume is large, variability of cost is small then sophisticated block contracts will be favored.
  3. When variability in cost is large and variability of demand is large then cost-per-case payments will be favored.
  4. Characteristics of purchasers and/or providers that mitigate monitoring costs will give rise to a greater use of volume-dependent and sophisticated block contracts relative to simple block contracts. 

The results from a multinomial logit regression support these conjectures.  

Thus, although policymakers would prefer a one-size-fits all contractual arrangement, the authors show that contractual arrangements between the health purchaser and the provider must take into account the variability inherent the good being supplied.  For instance, simpler contracts should be favored when monitoring costs are high, but more complex contracts may be feasible with lower contractual cost.  Low variation in cost and volume makes block payments very attractive.  However, when there is significant variation in cost or volume, cost-per-case or volume-dependent contracts can help mitigate the providers financial risk.

Tags: , ,

Bob Laszewski has a great posts on 5 false  “solutions” to reduce health care costs.  These are:

  • EMR: Making electronic medical records universal will greatly improve health care quality, but the impact on cost will be minor.  Better quality care can reduce iatrogenic injuries and reduce cost, but the cost reduction–if any–will likely be small in magnitude.
  • Prevention.  From the CBO: any gains from reducing obesity would be concentrated in the short and intermediate period “because some of the savings will be offset by increased longevity and the cost of disease that are most prevalent during old age.”
  • Outcomes Research:  Laszewski claims that “inefficient use of technology is the key driver in health care spending accounting for an estimated 38% to 65% of spending growth.  The problem…with the suggestions that more outcomes research will save us money is that more than twenty years of outstanding outcomes research, Dartmouth for example, has not kept our health care costs under control.”  Outcomes research is important; it is imperative for physicians to prescribe cost effective treatment.  However, I agree with Laszewski that if financial incentives are not aligned to promote physician use of evidence-based medicine, then health outcomes research will have little impact.
  • P4P: Laszewski doesn’t like pay-for-performance because in order for it to save money, it must lead to a reduction in physician payment on average.  Another reason why P4P won’t work is that paying individuals to check a diabetic’s A1C level may increase the frequency the physician monitors this metric, but it also may compel the physician to substitute their time away from other necessary medical services.
  • Universal Coverage.  Universal coverage should reduce the percentage of individual who go to the emergency room for primary care needs;.  Nevertheless, providing universal health insurance coverage will certainly increase healthcare spending due to the moral hazard problem as well as supplier-induced demand.

Tags: , ,

From the BBC:

“…researchers found Web searches for common symptoms such as headache and chest pain were just as likely or more likely to lead people to pages describing serious conditions as benign ones, even though the serious illnesses are much more rare.

Searching for ‘chest pain’ or ‘muscle twitches’ returned terrifying results with the same frequency as less serious ailments, even though the chances of having a heart attack or a fatal neurodegenerative condition is far lower than having simple indigestion or muscle strain, for example.

Tags: ,

Google searches as a public health resource:

Google.org has released Flu Trends, an online reporting tool for flu-related search activity. It’s long been theorized that Google’s search data would be useful to predict epidemics. This is the first time they’ve released a tool like this to the public. As they say on the main page:

We have found a close relationship between how many people search for flu-related topics and how many people actually have flu symptoms. Of course, not every person who searches for “flu” is actually sick, but a pattern emerges when all the flu-related search queries from each state and region are added together. We compared our query counts with data from a surveillance system managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and discovered that some search queries tend to be popular exactly when flu season is happening. By counting how often we see these search queries, we can estimate how much flu is circulating in various regions of the United States.

This tool comes to us via Google.org’s Predict & Prevent initiative. You can download the data for your own analysis.

[Update, 14 May 2009: Google is refining their Flu Trends data by asking people questions about their flu searches.]

Tags: , ,

Is it better for a physician to have more information or less?  Should physicians utilize diagnostic support systems (DSS) which base their recommendations on hundreds or thousands of data points or should they trust their gut instinct?  Most rational people would say that physicians should use DSS–not blindly–but as a tool to guide their decisionmaking.  Would a rational physician ever refuse DSS?

It turns out that physicians may be wise to refuse DSS assistance to build their reputation.  A study by Arkes, Shaffer and Medow (2007) found that patients believed that physicians who did not use DSS were more capable doctors than those who did.  ”Patients may surmise that a physician who uses a DSS is not as capable as a physician who makes the diagnosis with no assistance from a DSS”

Tags: ,

Information technology has the possibility of greatly increasing the efficiency of health care.  EMRs can reduce the cost of accessing patient information.  New technologies can make medical devices more effective.  

But is there a cost to increased medical technology?  GigaOM wonders

“...will widespread diagnostics increase the burden on healthcare? Somewhere between 10 and 50 percent of autopsies reveal diseases other than the one that killed the patient. If consumers test themselves, then tell their doctors, the medical system could wind up treating 50 percent more diseases than it does today — even those that wouldn’t have killed the patient.

Will treating diseases before they appear increase health care quality or just drive up costs?  On the future will reveal the answer.

Tags: , ,

Mendeley

I recently received an email about Mendeley, software program for managing and sharing research papers.  I have not used this, but am certainly interested in programs that help organize your research.  Has anyone used this program?  Any thoughts?

Tags: ,

MedPedia is a new project similar to Wikipedia but for medicine. It will act as an online collaborative medical encyclopedia available to the general public. Unlike Wikipedia, content editors and creators are required to have an MD or a PhD. Organizations funding MedPedia include some well-known acronyms: CDC, NIH, and FDA.

One question remains: will MedPedia be a significant improvement over existing sites such as WebMD and MayoClinic? We will see when the site goes live at the end of 2008.

Tags: , , ,

Your doctor says you have six months to live. How accurate is this figure? Do you really have 4 moths to live? One year?

A paper by Alexander and Christakis (2008) analyzes physicians predictions of patient survival. The authors find that physicians systematically overestimate how long the patient will live. This bias is exacerbated when 1) the physician has a closer relationship with the patient or 2) the physician has to communicate their survival prediction directly to the patient.

In the paper, the authors collect data from a number of large hospices in Chicago. Before the patient was admitted to the hospice, the researchers asked the patient’s physician–usually the referring physician–to estimate how long the patient would survive. This was done using 3 measures:

(1) the point prediction is an answer to a question about the physicians’ best estimate of how long this patient has to live; (2) the communicated prediction is an answer to a question about what prognosis the doctor would communicate to the patient if the patient or the family insisted on receiving an estimate of survival; (3) the subjective distribution prediction is the physicians’ stated percent estimate that the patient would still be alive 7, 30, 90, 180 and 360 days after referral.

The closeness of the physicians to the patient is proxied with measures of the duration of their relationship, the frequency of their contact, and the date of their most recent contact.

Why would doctors overestimate survival? We assume predictions in the general case may be incorrect, but that estimates on average do not over- or underestimate survival probabilities. The lack of bias is due to the fact that we usually assume that individuals hope to reduce the mean-squared error of their prediction. The loss function, however, may not always be symmetric. One example of asymmetric loss functions comes from Varian’s 1974 paper, which investigates property value assessments in California. The paper showed that underestimate of property values cost the town money (in terms of the property tax received), but an overestimate could trigger the homeowner to file a lengthy and costly appeal process. Similarly, one would expect that doctors do not feel guilty giving the patient optimistic survival estimates, compared to the emotional stress which occurs when one has to communicate a pessimistic survival estimate to the patient.

The paper also finds evidence for two other types of biases: information bias and physician referential bias.

Information bias says that overestimates are more likely when the physician has less information about a disease. For this reason, we see that physicians have more accurate, less biased predictions for cancer patients. Why is this the case? Since cancer was the most likely reason why a person was admitted to a hospice, physicians have more experience caring for cancer patients. As the physician’s knowledge of a disease and frequency of dealings with patients who have a disease increase, the physician’s survival estimate becomes less biased.

Also, the physician’s physical observation (physician referential bias) will make predictions less accurate and more prone to overestimation. The authors claim that “[w]hen the patient is physically active, and able to function with little assistance on a daily basis, the physicians’ prognosis becomes more inaccurate and doctors inflate the estimates of their patients survival.”

  • Alexander M, Christakis NA (2008) “Bias and asymmetric loss in expert forecasts: A study of physician prognostic behavior with respect to patient survivalJHE, 27, pp. 1095-1108.
    • Varian, 1974 H.R. Varian, A Bayesian approach to real estate assessment. In: S.E. Fienberg and A. Zellner, Editors, Studies in Bayesian Econometrics and Statistics, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1974), pp. 195–208.

    Tags: , ,

    « Older entries § Newer entries »