The Tax Benefits of Not-for-Profit Hospitals

This paper investigates three special tax provisions for not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals. First taxes -- both income and property taxes. Second, they issue tax-exempt bonds so lenders do not pay income taxes on interest received. Third, donors deduct charitable contributions from their income tax bases. The rationale for these policies is that the NFP hospitals provide community benefits, the definition of which is often loosely-specified. The value of capital tax exemptions depends on the capital intensity of NFP hospitals, and for income taxes, the hospitals' profitability. For 1995, the aggregate value of the exemption from income taxes is $4.6 billion; the median hospital receives benefits of 1.8 percent of total assets. For the property tax exemption, we estimate an aggregate value of$1.7 billion. The value of the property tax exemption varies across hospitals depending on state and local tax policies and the hospital asset mix. Tax-exempt bonds and deductible contributions are concentrated among larger hospitals. Only 19.7 percent of NFP hospitals had outstanding tax-exempt debt in 1994. Almost half of existing bond debt could be replaced by using hospital endowments; we calculate an annual aggregate benefit of $354 million from using tax-exempt bonds. For charitable contributions, roughly four percent of hospitals receive 71 percent of the contributions. We estimate that the lost tax revenue from these contributions is$1.1 billion in 1994.

Health Insurance and the Supply of Entrepreneurs

Some commentators have suggested that the absence of portable health insurance impedes people from leaving their jobs to start new firms. We investigate this belief by comparing wage-earners who become self-employed during a given period of time with their counterparts who do not. By examining the impact of variables relating to the health insurance and health status of these workers and their families, we can infer whether the lack of health insurance portability affects the probability that they become self-employed. The evidence does not support the conjecture that the current health insurance system affects the propensity to become self-employed. Hence, whatever its other merits, there is no reason to believe that the introduction of universal health insurance would significantly enhance entrepreneurial activity.

Measurement Error in Prenatal Care Utilization: Evidence of Attenuation Bias in the Estimation of Impact on Birth Weight

Objective: Errors in the measurement of the timing and number of prenatal care visits may produce downward bias in estimates of the impact of prenatal care use on birth outcomes. This paper examines the extent of attenuation bias from measurement error in the estimation of the effect of prenatal care use on birth weight. Methods: Data were analyzed from the 1980 National Natality Survey, a nationally representative sample of live births with information on prenatal care utilization from three sources: birth certificates, medical provider surveys, and maternal surveys. The extent of attenuation bias in estimates of the impact of different measures of prenatal care use on birth weight was examined by comparing estimates robust to measurement error (including instrumental variables) with ordinary least squares results. Results: There is considerable disagreement in measures of prenatal care across the three data sources, with correlations in the utilization measures computed from different sources around 0.5. The results also show evidence of attenuation bias from measurement error in estimates of the impact of prenatal care on birth weight for both White and Black mothers. Attenuation bias was least severe for information from the birth certificate report of prenatal care. Conclusions: Because of measurement error, previous studies may have underestimated the effect of prenatal care utilization on birth weight. Corrected estimates, however, do not suggest that prenatal care is a major predictor of birth weight. In addition, part of what previous analyses have interpreted as adverse selection bias may in fact be attenuation bias due to measurement error.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45323/1/10995_2004_Article_224322.pd

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with high tumour mutational burden: Patient-reported outcomes results from the randomised, open-label, phase III CheckMate 227 trial

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CheckMate 227 study, first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (co-primary end-point) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high tumour mutational burden (TMB; ≥10 mutations/megabase). AIM: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this population. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using the validated PRO questionnaires Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D, respectively. LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) and three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) scores and changes from baseline were analysed descriptively. Longitudinal changes were assessed by mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRMs) and time to first deterioration/improvement analyses. RESULTS: In the high TMB population, PRO questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% at baseline and \u3e80% for most on-treatment assessments. During treatment, mean changes from baseline with nivolumab + ipilimumab showed early, clinically meaningful improvements in LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D VAS/UI; with chemotherapy, symptoms and health-related quality of life remained stable (LCSS ASBI/3-IGI, EQ-5D UI) or improved following induction (EQ-5D VAS). MMRM-assessed changes in symptom burden were improved with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. Symptom deterioration by week 12 was lower with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (22.3% versus 35.0%; absolute risk reduction: 12.7% [95% confidence interval 2.4-22.5]), irrespective of discontinuation. Time to first deterioration was delayed with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS and EQ-5D summary measures. CONCLUSION: First-line nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated early, sustained improvements in PROs versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high TMB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02477826

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with high tumour mutational burden: Patient-reported outcomes results from the randomised, open-label, phase III CheckMate 227 trial

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CheckMate 227 study, first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (co-primary end-point) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high tumour mutational burden (TMB; ≥10 mutations/megabase). AIM: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this population. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using the validated PRO questionnaires Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D, respectively. LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) and three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) scores and changes from baseline were analysed descriptively. Longitudinal changes were assessed by mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRMs) and time to first deterioration/improvement analyses. RESULTS: In the high TMB population, PRO questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% at baseline and \u3e80% for most on-treatment assessments. During treatment, mean changes from baseline with nivolumab + ipilimumab showed early, clinically meaningful improvements in LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D VAS/UI; with chemotherapy, symptoms and health-related quality of life remained stable (LCSS ASBI/3-IGI, EQ-5D UI) or improved following induction (EQ-5D VAS). MMRM-assessed changes in symptom burden were improved with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. Symptom deterioration by week 12 was lower with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (22.3% versus 35.0%; absolute risk reduction: 12.7% [95% confidence interval 2.4-22.5]), irrespective of discontinuation. Time to first deterioration was delayed with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS and EQ-5D summary measures. CONCLUSION: First-line nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated early, sustained improvements in PROs versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high TMB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02477826

Cost-Effectiveness of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa

BACKGROUND: Little information exists on the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on health-care provision in South Africa despite increasing scale-up of access to HAART and gradual reduction in HAART prices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Use and cost of services for 265 HIV-infected adults without AIDS (World Health Organization [WHO] stage 1, 2, or 3) and 27 with AIDS (WHO stage 4) receiving HAART between 1995 and 2000 in Cape Town were compared with HIV-infected controls matched for baseline WHO stage, CD4 count, age, and socioeconomic status, who did not receive antiretroviral therapy (ART; No-ART group). Costs of service provision (January 2004 prices, US$1 = 7.6 Rand) included local unit costs, and two scenarios for HAART prices for WHO recommended first-line regimens: scenario 1 used current South African public-sector ART drug prices of$730 per patient-year (PPY), whereas scenario 2 was based on the anticipated public-sector price for locally manufactured drug of $181 PPY. All analyses are presented in terms of patients without AIDS and patients with AIDS. For patients without AIDS, the mean number of inpatient days PPY was 1.08 (95$950 for the No-ART group versus $1,342 and$793 PPY for the HAART group for scenario 1 and 2, respectively, whereas the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) was $1,622 for scenario 1 and$675 for scenario 2. For patients with AIDS, mean inpatients days PPY was 2.04 (95% CI: 1.63–2.52) for the HAART versus 15.36 (95% CI: 13.97–16.85) for the No-ART group. Mean outpatient visits PPY was 7.62 (95% CI: 6.81–8.49) compared with 6.60 (95% CI: 5.69–7.62) respectively. Average service provision PPY was $3,520 for the No-ART group versus$1,513 and $964 for the HAART group for scenario 1 and 2, respectively, whereas the incremental cost per LYG was cost saving for both scenarios. In a sensitivity analysis based on the lower (25$1,557 to $1,772 for the group without AIDS and from cost saving to$111 for patients with AIDS. CONCLUSION: HAART is a cost-effective intervention in South Africa, and cost saving when HAART prices are further reduced. Our estimates, however, were based on direct costs, and as such the actual cost saving might have been underestimated if indirect costs were also included