Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs

The social value of an innovation is comprised of the value to consumers and the value to innovators. We estimate that for the HIV/AIDS therapies that entered the market from the late 1980's onwards, innovators appropriated only 5% of the social surplus arising from these new technologies. Despite the high annual costs of these drugs to patients, the low share of social surplus going to innovators raises concerns about advocating cost-effectiveness criteria that would further reduce this share, and hence further reduce incentives for innovation.

Surplus Appropriation from R&D and Health Care Technology Assessment Procedures

Given the rapid growth in health care spending that is often attributed to technological change, many private and public institutions are grappling with how to best assess and adopt new health care technologies. The leading technology adoption criteria proposed in theory and used in practice involve so called "cost-effectiveness" measures. However, little is known about the dynamic efficiency implications of such criteria, in particular how they influence the R&D investments that make technologies available in the first place. We argue that such criteria implicitly concern maximizing consumer surplus, which many times is consistent with maximizing static efficiency after an innovation has been developed. Dynamic efficiency, however, concerns aligning the social costs and benefits of R&D and is therefore determined by how much of the social surplus from the new technology is appropriated as producer surplus. We analyze the relationship between cost-effectiveness measures and the degree of surplus appropriation by innovators driving dynamic efficiency. We illustrate how to estimate the two for the new HIV/AIDS therapies that entered the market after the late 1980's and find that only 5% of the social surplus is appropriated by innovators. We show how this finding can be generalized to other existing cost-effectiveness estimates by deriving how those estimates identify innovator appropriation for a set of studies of over 200 drugs. We find that these studies implicitly support a low degree of appropriation as well. Despite the high annual cost of drugs to patients, very low shares of social surplus may go to innovators, which may imply that cost-effectiveness is too high in a dynamic efficiency sense.

The Pragmatist’s Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research

All developed countries have been struggling with a trend toward health care absorbing an ever-larger fraction of government and private budgets. Adopting any treatment that improves health outcomes, no matter what the cost, can worsen allocative inefficiency by paying dearly for small health gains. One potential solution is to rely more heavily on studies of the costs and effectiveness of new technologies in an effort to ensure that new spending is justified by a commensurate gain in consumer benefits. But not everyone is a fan of such studies and we discuss the merits of comparative effectiveness studies and its cousin, cost-effectiveness analysis. We argue that effectiveness research can generate some moderating effects on cost growth in healthcare if such research can be used to nudge patients away from less-effective therapies, whether through improved decision making or by encouraging beefed-up copayments for cost-ineffective procedures. More promising still for reducing growth is the use of a cost-effectiveness framework to better understand where the real savings lie—and the real savings may well lie in figuring out the complex interaction and fragmentation of healthcare systems.

Opioid prescribing by multiple providers in Medicare: retrospective observational study of insurance claims

Objectives: To estimate the frequency and characteristics of opioid prescribing by multiple providers in Medicare and the association with hospital admissions related to opioid use. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Database of prescription drugs and medical claims in 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2010. Participants: 1 808 355 Medicare beneficiaries who filled at least one prescription for an opioid from a pharmacy in 2010. Main outcome measures Proportion of beneficiaries who filled opioid prescriptions from multiple providers; proportion of these prescriptions that were concurrently supplied; adjusted rates of hospital admissions related to opioid use associated with multiple provider prescribing. Results: Among 1 208 100 beneficiaries with an opioid prescription, 418 530 (34.6%) filled prescriptions from two providers, 171 420 (14.2%) from three providers, and 143 344 (11.9%) from four or more providers. Among beneficiaries with four or more opioid providers, 110 671 (77.2%) received concurrent opioid prescriptions from multiple providers, and the dominant provider prescribed less than half of the mean total prescriptions per beneficiary (7.9/15.2 prescriptions). Multiple provider prescribing was highest among beneficiaries who were also prescribed stimulants, non-narcotic analgesics, and central nervous system, neuromuscular, and antineoplastic drugs. Hospital admissions related to opioid use increased with multiple provider prescribing: the annual unadjusted rate of admission was 1.63% (95% confidence interval 1.58 to 1.67%) for beneficiaries with one provider, 2.08% (2.03% to 2.14%) for two providers, 2.87% (2.77% to 2.97%) for three providers, and 4.83% (4.70% to 4.96%) for four or more providers. Results were similar after covariate adjustment. Conclusions: Concurrent opioid prescribing by multiple providers is common in Medicare patients and is associated with higher rates of hospital admission related to opioid use

Do heads of government age more quickly? Observational study comparing mortality between elected leaders and runners-up in national elections of 17 countries

Objectives: To determine whether being elected to head of government is associated with accelerated mortality by studying survival differences between people elected to office and unelected runner-up candidates who never served. Design: Observational study. Setting: Historical survival data on elected and runner-up candidates in parliamentary or presidential elections in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States, from 1722 to 2015. Participants: Elected and runner-up political candidates. Main outcome measure Observed number of years alive after each candidate’s last election, relative to what would be expected for an average person of the same age and sex as the candidate during the year of the election, based on historical French and British life tables. Observed post-election life years were compared between elected candidates and runners-up, adjusting for life expectancy at time of election. A Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for candidate’s life expectancy at the time of election) considered years until death (or years until end of study period for those not yet deceased by 9 September 2015) for elected candidates versus runners-up. Results: The sample included 540 candidates: 279 winners and 261 runners-up who never served. A total of 380 candidates were deceased by 9 September 2015. Candidates who served as a head of government lived 4.4 (95% confidence interval 2.1 to 6.6) fewer years after their last election than did candidates who never served (17.8 v 13.4 years after last election; adjusted difference 2.7 (0.6 to 4.8) years). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, which considered all candidates (alive or deceased), the mortality hazard for elected candidates relative to runners-up was 1.23 (1.00 to 1.52). Conclusions: Election to head of government is associated with a substantial increase in mortality risk compared with candidates in national elections who never served

Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19

Concerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted research productivity to the disadvantage of women in academia, particularly in early career stages. In this study, we aimed to assess the pandemic's effect on women's COVID-19-related publishing over the first year of the pandemic. We compared the gender distribution of first authorships for 42 898 publications on COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 to 483 232 publications appearing in the same journals during the same period the year prior. We found that the gender gap-the percentage of articles on which men versus women were first authors-widened by 14 percentage points during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite many pertinent research fields showing near equal proportions of men and women first authors publishing in the same fields before the pandemic. Longitudinal analyses revealed that the significant initial expansions of the gender gap began to trend backwards to expected values over time in many fields. As women may have been differentially affected depending on their geography, we also assessed the gender distribution of first authorships grouped by countries and geographical areas. While we observed a significant reduction of the shares of women first authors in almost all countries, longitudinal analyses confirmed a resolving trend over time. The reduction in women's COVID-19-related research output appears particularly concerning as many disciplines informing the response to the pandemic had near equal gender shares of first authorship in the year prior to the pandemic. The acute productivity drain with the onset of the pandemic magnifies deep-rooted obstacles on the way to gender equity in scientific contribution

Affirmative Action Bans and Health Risk Behaviors

College affirmative action bans were associated with higher rates of smoking and drinking in underrepresented minority 11th and 12th graders, and these students continued to smoke at higher rates into young adulthood. Policymakers should consider unintended public health consequences of proposals, such as affirmative action bans, that may limit socioeconomic opportunities

An Economic Evaluation of the War on Cancer

For decades, the US public and private sectors have committed substantial resources towards cancer research, but the societal payoff has not been well-understood. We quantify the value of recent gains in cancer survival, and analyze the distribution of value among various stakeholders. Between 1988 and 2000, life expectancy for cancer patients increased by roughly four years, and the average willingness-to-pay for these survival gains was roughly $322,000. Improvements in cancer survival during this period created 23 million additional life-years and roughly$1.9 trillion of additional social value, implying that the average life-year was worth approximately $82,000 to its recipient. Health care providers and pharmaceutical companies appropriated 5-19% of this total, with the rest accruing to patients. The share of value flowing to patients has been rising over time. These calculations suggest that from the patient's point of view, the rate of return to R&D investments against cancer has been substantial.