Politico Health Care's Upstream' Conundrum

3/13/2019 Health care’s ‘upstream’ conundrum
 
Kasia Bogda ńska for POLITICO
The Agenda
AGENDA 2020
Health care’s ‘upstream’ conundrum

When it comes to the long-term health of the country, findings now show the big
problem might not be health care at all—it might be everything else. Can researchers get
politicians to pay attention?
By DAVID H. FREEDMAN | 01/10/2018 05:30 AM EST
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/01/10/long-term-health-nation-problems-000613 1/11
At the heart of America's vaunted health care system is a frustrating puzzle. The United
States pays three times as much per citizen as the average of other wealthy nations—far
more than even the second-highest spender, Switzerland, adding up to $3 trillion a year.
Yet for all that enormous expenditure, we come in dead last among those nations in
lifespan. And as the bills climb, our life expectancy is actually shrinking.
What’s going so wrong? If our national health care were a corporation, that return on
investment would get its CEO immediately fired. Plenty of experts are ready to point
fingers at various causes: our lack of universal health care, industrialized food system,
suburban lifestyles, and profit-driven tangle of insurers and drug companies and hospitals.
Surely those play a role. And yet other countries face each of these, and other challenges as
well, and still manage to spend less and enjoy better health overall.
Looming over the American conversation about public health is a growing suspicion that
there's a bigger reason for our uniquely poor showing, one that has been staring us in the
face for years. It's an explanation rooted in one simple statistic: While we pay more for
health care than any other country in the world, when it comes to spending on social
services—education, subsidized housing, food assistance and more—we rank in the bottom
10 among developed countries.
It's easy to think of “health” as just another category of social-service spending. But a great
deal of modern research suggests that it might be more accurate to think of it as the payoff
of all the other services put together. Elizabeth Bradley, president of Vassar College and a
former Yale researcher widely seen as the world's foremost expert in the relationship
between social services and health, has documented how the ratio of a country's social-
service spending to health care spending is highly correlated with health outcomes around
the world. "The right question for our political agenda is, 'What's going to give us the most
bang for the buck in health outcomes?'" says Bradley. "What our work has shown is that the
answer is spending on social services."
For a cost-conscious government ever wary of spending taxpayer money on public

programs, this kind of expansive view of “health” sounds politically forbidding. But if you
really care about health—and as a society, we clearly do, to the tune of $672 billion a year in
Medicare, $565 billion in Medicaid, $329 billion raked in by the pharma industry and a $1
trillion by hospitals—there is good reason to believe that money pumped into social
services would do more for our national health than money invested directly in health care.
In fact, it's possible to see America's astronomical health costs as a bill coming due from
our reluctance to pay for everything else. "We spend so much on health care because we're
mopping up for our lack of investment in education, housing and other areas," says Corey
Rhyan, an analyst at the Center for Sustainable Health Spending at health care think tank
Altarum.
In public health, there's a buzzword for all these other factors: the "social determinants of
health," the complex set of home-and-community factors that shapes every American life.
A simple way to think of it might be as looking "upstream" from health, toward the
influences we encounter long before we need medical care to fix the problems they’ve
caused. What if, instead of plowing more money into medicine, we could shift those?
Of course, that's not how our policy conversation has gone. When we debate housing
services, or education spending, we rarely focus on their potentially huge downstream
benefits on public health. And when we debate health care spending, we don't discuss the
lack of “upstream” social services that has made much of that care necessary.
Why don't policymakers start looking further upstream? One problem is that it has been
difficult to put hard numbers on the health care payback from social-service spending—and
especially hard to get numbers relevant in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of
elected officials. But in recent years, economists and public-health experts have started to
focus more on answering that question, trying to build an economic case for tackling health
through upstream changes, instead of playing an expensive game of catch-up downstream.
And the numbers are starting to come in, thanks to a growing range of innovative social-
good programs that measure hard health care benefits, as well as a renewed effort on the
part of academic researchers to give policymakers the data they need.
Five years ago those sorts of programs and tools were scarce. But more recently, they've
quietly been arriving on the scene, driven in part by imaginative new approaches to what
we should be measuring, and how. If these approaches work, they could start changing not
only our policy conversation, but the politics around it, offering hard-headed evidence of
savings that Republicans could get behind as easily as Democrats. The stakes couldn’t be
higher: Last year health care passed retail as America’s largest industry, and our aging
population makes it overwhelmingly likely that we’ll be shifting yet more of our GDP into
medical spending for decades to come. If we wanted to start bending that curve right now,
what levers should we really push?
IN THE BIG PICTURE, it's become hard to refute the evidence that upstream
investment matters to health—and matters a lot. In one analysis, Bradley and her
colleagues crunched 74 different studies that had examined the issue, and found a fairly
consistent set of health benefits from social spending. In a separate study of U.S states,
Bradley calculated that if such a shift in spending in a state were enough to increase the
ratio of social spending to health care spending by 20 percent, it would on average equate
to reducing the ranks of the obese in that state by 85,000, along with other health
improvements. As strange as it sounds, that means the best way to improve health might
often be to shift money away from health care.
That’s not an easy political case to make, in part because putting hard dollar values on
decisions like that is so tricky. In fact, for a long time researchers didn't even try. A study
published in the British Medical Journal, for instance, found that nearly half the studies
that looked at both the costs and health care-savings benefits of social programs simply
presented the data without bothering to do a full cost-benefit analysis.
Even when the benefits are clearly visible, policymakers immediately run into the so-called
"long pocket" problem: The costs of social spending start piling up immediately, while most
of the health benefits pay off years and even decades in the future. That's politically
unappealing to elected officials on two- and four-year cycles, to say nothing of appointees
who need to show results while they're still in office. And politics aside, investing for
distant returns is both psychologically and economically hard to justify. "To the extent that
investment is diverted somewhere, you give up a stream of benefits that could have been
had if you invested somewhere else," says David Weimer, a policy economist at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Even in the unlikely chance that researchers managed to
run a study for 40 years to fully capture the long-term benefits of a program, Weimer
points out, there's a pretty good chance that the original program would feel irrelevant in a
much-changed world.
For those reasons, program sponsors and researchers are now focusing on the shorter
term, trying to prove that social spending can pay off quickly in reduced health care costs.
One sweet spot is in subsidized housing, where benefits often accrue right away, especially
for the most challenging patients.
In Portland, Oregon, in 2011, the city's housing bureau, in collaboration with county
agencies, began placing more than 7,000 residents without homes in a large, new facility.
Because most of the residents were covered by Medicaid and received healthcare from local
public facilities, it was possible to track the costs of their care from the start. Within a few
years, those costs had on average fallen by 55 percent—adding up to an annual drop in
health care costs of about $1,100 per person. A similar program in Chicago, led by the city's
housing and health agency and University of Illinois Hospital, reduced health care costs by
42 percent.
A few private-sector organizations are jumping in, too, particularly on the food side.
Humana Health, which provides both health insurance and health care, is running
programs in Louisville, Kentucky and four other Southern cities, offering healthier food to
vulnerable parts of the community, and has already documented an average $15-per-
month-per-patient reduction in health care costs. UnitedHealthcare, another insurance
and care provider, has announced a comparable program in Mississippi in collaboration
with Alcorn State University. [UnitedHealthcare is financial underwriter for POLITICO’s
Agenda 2020 series, but was not involved in conceiving or editing this story.]
The savings these programs report may seem relatively small, but they're at least proof of
concept, and are expected to grow over time as the health benefits help slow or even head
off expensive long-term conditions like diabetes and heart disease. What's more, any
reduction in health costs stands in sharp and welcome contrast to what has long been a
steep, steady upward march. "We're getting pretty clean evidence now that communities
that invest in these programs see lower medical spending," says Glen Mays, a public health
researcher at the University of Kentucky.
One of the most closely watched programs has been that run by Minneapolis-based
Hennepin Health, an accountable care organization for patients on Medicaid run by the
surrounding county. Minnesota sharply expanded Medicaid eligibility in the state in 2011
and again in 2014, bringing in about 10,000 new enrollees under Hennepin's care,
representing well over $300 million in new health care costs. These enrollees, all of whom
were poor and many of whom didn't have permanent housing, were being admitted to the
hospital at three times the rate of other nonelderly adults, and were visiting the emergency
department an astonishing 13 times as often, according to Ross Owen, the health strategy
director for Hennepin County. Each such admission or visit can easily rack up thousands of
dollars in costs, making reducing them good targets for a program. "Those are the low-
hanging fruits of these kinds of interventions," says Owen.
Though Hennepin is a health care organization, it started paying for a range of housing and
other social services for its patients—services far outside of medicine—in hopes that they’d
pay off by reducing the need for medical care. So far, five years into the program, it has
found that emergency department visits have dropped 35 percent, while outpatient doctor
visits—a much more cost-effective way to provide care—have risen 21 percent. Overall,
health care costs for enrollees have been dropping 11 percent per year. The fast results have
kept the county eager to maintain the program and even to expand it, says Owen.
"Requiring decades to show savings from an investment doesn't match the way health care
financing works," he explains.
ONE BIG OBSTACLE to using these insights is that the broader American health system
really isn’t set up to benefit from long-term preventive investments. Right now, the
incentive to spend on upstream services is largely limited to agencies and organizations
that, like Hennepin Health, are in "closed systems"—that is, where the payer also provides
the care, so the organization spending money will be the same one reaping the benefits.
Other such closed systems include Kaiser Permanente and Veterans Affairs, which notably
have also have been providing housing benefits to their neediest enrollees. But most of
American healthcare doesn't work this way: Payers and providers operate in separate and
competing realms. Insurers have an incentive to keep costs down, but most don't hang onto
individual customers long enough for distant payoffs to matter. Hospitals and doctors,
meanwhile, make more money by providing more care, so they have no obvious financial
incentive to invest in social services that will leave patients needing less of it.
Of course, government and other agencies can fund those services, but if those savings do
materialize, they may never come back to the taxpayers who funded them. Even local
governments can get cut out, because the federal government would be the biggest
beneficiaries of any savings in Medicaid or Medicare treatment. It's called the "wrong
pocket" problem: The money comes out of one party's pocket, but the benefits go into
someone else's.
And justifying the investments with the biggest benefits may be an even steeper challenge.
Many researchers have come to believe that the most important long-term health payoffs
are likely to come from investments in education, environmental cleanup and urban design
—areas even further removed from health care, and where the payoffs that are even more
diffuse and distant. But now researchers may be closing in on ways to convincingly
document those more elusive gains, as well.
The first problem they’re encountering is just how little information is available to work
with. A study published in the BMJ surveyed the research on the question and found the
longest follow-up period of health outcomes ended less than four years after the social-
service intervention. For many kinds of investments, like better education, and for many
types of health payoffs, like diabetes or Alzheimer's, that would barely even be the starting
point for observing returns. "Expectations that health impacts will be observed in this short
timescale may be naive," the authors drily noted.
And "health" itself is a frustratingly hard thing to put a clear economic value on. In health
care economics writ large, benefits and their values can be very subjective, and can veer
into difficult moral issues. One crude but effective way to measure at least the relative value
of upstream interventions is simply to determine which ones leave people less likely to die
sooner. For example, one study calculated that every $1,000 invested in the education of a
low-income child can add more than a month to the child's life--which adds up to a much
higher return on investment than, say, colorectal cancer screening, and exceeds by a factor
of three the widely accepted threshold for the level of risk reduction required to justify a
public-health intervention.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that the sorts of conditions addressed by
social-service spending figure heavily in mortality and health. They concluded that about
one out of five deaths can be attributed to conditions in the immediate environment; that
low-income individuals are 29 percent more likely to die in any given time period than
those of middle income; and that social circumstances account for 40 percent of what
influences health. A United Kingdom study found that a jump in the mortality rate
coincided with a drop in social-service spending there in 2010, leading to 120,000 more
deaths from 2010 to 2017 than there would have been if the pre-2010 rate had held steady.
It's no different in the U.S., says Alex Sutherland, research leader at Rand Europe. "The
impact of tiny investments can be dramatic," he says. "A 1 percentage point increase in
social spending would add up to 16 million additional years of life across the whole U.S.
population."
While these sorts of findings bring home the impact of social services on health, they don't
really give policymakers the hard-dollar numbers that would help politicians make a more
clear-eyed case to the public. One way to do that, says Weimer, is to come up with so-called
"shadow prices" for things like an extra year of life, or a percentage drop in the risk of a
disease. "Economists come up with rules of thumb that allowing valuing savings in
commuter time as, for example, half the wage rate," he says. "We need to develop the same
sort of thing for health improvements." These shadow prices could then be discounted in a
straightforward way if they kick in over time, and then added up like any other return on
investment.
BUT THERE MAY be an even better way to make the accounting case for the long-term
health benefits of social spending—one that borrows a tactic from pharmaceutical studies.
Those studies frequently use surrogate endpoints like lower cholesterol as a way to forecast
longer-term heart benefits. Several researchers are now working on approaches that look
for short-term health markers that strongly correlate with long-term outcomes. One of
them is Andrew Fenelon, a public-health scientist at the University of Maryland's
Population Research Center, who's planning to integrate federal data on 40,000
households with biomarkers like blood pressure to come up with projections of how
spending on housing is likely to affect long-term health and to do it within a few years
rather than a few decades. "We usually rely on self-reported health," he says. "But
biomarkers give us a way of validating the data with objective clinical measures."
In a similar vein, researchers are looking at cholesterol levels in a Pittsburgh low-income

neighborhood that recently got a supermarket after years as a food desert. So far, new cases
of high cholesterol have dropped 10 percent in a year. And Mays is involved in a study with
Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis that's integrating electronic medical records with
community social-service resources. That's an approach that could pay off on both the
cause and effect sides: first, by making it easier for health care providers to flag patients
who would most benefit from a social intervention and funnel them directly into services;
and then by ensuring that downstream health results are tabulated directly alongside
records of past interventions for clear cost/benefit calculations.
Some researchers think that the best biomarkers for linking social service investment to
long-term health will involve those that indicate inflammation, strongly correlated with
stress, and now seen by many in medicine as important factors in everything from heart
disease to cancer to Alzheimer's. Inflammation markers can shift quickly with changes in
the environment, notes Apostolos Davillas, senior research officer at the Institute for Social
and Economic Research at the University of Essex in the U.K. "When you see elevated
inflammation biomarkers it's a clear indicator that something's happening in the body's
stress pathway," he says. "It can show us how socioeconomic status can literally get under
someone's skin." Davillis is already working with blood samples that provide inflammation
data that can be pulled together with other health care markers, like BMI, along with
detailed social and economic data. "It's the only good way to evaluate the effects of social
policies on the health of the population," he says. Future efforts could add in
measurements of diet, exercise levels, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and other lifestyle
indicators that are all correlated with long-term health outcomes.
One of the most ambitious new efforts is being funded by the Gates Foundation. The
project brings together researchers from Harvard and Stanford to sift through and analyze
a wealth of data from 1999 to 2014 covering neighborhood conditions, socioeconomic
status, biomarkers and health outcomes all across the U.S. population. The goal is to nail
down how long-term health outcomes vary with income and neighborhood factors, and to
use those findings to identify the social policies that are likely to provide the biggest returns
in long-term health. The scope of the project, as well as of the caliber and weight of its
sponsor and participants, are good indicators of both the scale of the challenge and the
enthusiasm about its potential.
IT'S ONE THING if this and many other projects together succeed in building a clear-cut,
hard-dollars case for the big health payback of social-service spending. Having those
results matter is another thing. There's no guarantee that, even in the face of strong proof
to the contrary, politicians won't keep on with business as usual, continuing to throw the
bigger bucks at health care—which has big, well-funded lobbies and enjoys broad public
support—rather than the social conditions that make the care necessary. After all, they've
done a pretty good job of shrugging off the evidence so far. "It's been making less and less
sense to look at medical diagnoses when you want make health-related spending decisions,
and more and more sense to look at demographics," says Hennepin's Owen. "The way we
distribute resources in this country ignores that reality."
But the more scientifically and economically hard-nosed these measurements get, the
broader a constituency they could attract. Bradley, who advocated for more social-service
spending in her 2013 book "The American Health Care Paradox," suggests that a more
powerful, long-term economic case for health-related savings wouldn't just change the
policy conversation—it could change the politics around the issue.
When conservative cost-cutters take aim at America's unsustainable medical spending,

they tend to sharpen their knives for safety-net programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
What if the smartest economic move to rein in those costs were actually to spend money,
but direct it judiciously elsewhere? That could make this kind of public-health reform more
than a progressive fantasy. "Bobby Jindal and other Republican governors said they liked
the idea as a way to spend less on Medicaid and to make the best investments possible,"
Bradley says. Some in Congress want to get private investment involved in providing
support for social-service programs that pay off in clear, measurable savings in healthcare,
among other benefits. That approach, called "social impact bonds," has been winning some
bipartisan support, including from no less a Republican stalwart than Orrin Hatch.
The quest to demonstrate powerful, broad, long-term health benefits to a range of social-
service investment offers the chance to reshape the politics around American social
spending. That means looking at improvements that tend to play out over one or more
decades. Such long-pocket payoffs may not normally play well in politics, but if the case
were strong enough and the returns big enough, legislators might not be able to say no.
David H. Freedman is co-founder and Executive Editor of Global HealthCare Insights

Magazine, and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. His most recent book is "Wrong:
Why Experts Keep Failing Us."
About Us
Advertising
Breaking News Alerts
Careers
Credit Card Payments
Digital Edition
FAQ
Feedback
Headlines
Photos
POWERJobs
Press
Print Subscriptions
RSS
Site Map
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
© 2019 POLITICO LLC

Politico Health Care's Upstream' Conundrum

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Politico Health Care's Upstream' Conundrum

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3/13/2019 Health care’s ‘upstream’ conundrum

Kasia Bogda ńska for POLITICO

Health care’s ‘upstream’ conundrum

For a cost-conscious government ever wary of spending taxpayer money on public

In a similar vein, researchers are looking at cholesterol levels in a Pittsburgh low-income

When conservative cost-cutters take aim at America's unsustainable medical spending,

David H. Freedman is co-founder and Executive Editor of Global HealthCare Insights

Breaking News Alerts

Credit Card Payments

© 2019 POLITICO LLC

S-ar putea să vă placă și