Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘ACA

How Easy is it to Access Health Care in the US?

with 2 comments

By: Rachel F Smallwood, PhD

Source: pixabay

         Access to health care has been a concern as long as there has been health care, and it is one of the hot-button issues of health care policy debates. The recent repeal of the Affordable Care Act and passing of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House of Representatives has again brought this debate front and center. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the first iteration of the AHCA indicated that it would result in 24 million less people having health insurance by 2026. It would also place more of the financial burden on people making less than $50,000 per year. However, substantial changes were made to parts of the bill before it passed in the House, and there will likely be more if it is to be passed in the Senate. There is much debate and dissension on what level of access to health care should be provided by the government and whether health care is a right versus a privilege. In addition to that debate, there are other facets of the United States’ health care system that need examination and work to ensure access to health care.

There are many reasons a person may not have access to health care – not having health insurance is just one. To measure access to health care, one must first define it. Is there some quality standard that must be met for treatment to be considered health care? How do we determine whether one person’s health care is equivalent to another’s? With health care measures that range from necessary, recommended but not dire, to completely elective, even these differences can be difficult to quantify. Most institutions collecting data on health care use a working definition like that set by the Institute of Medicine in 1993: access to health care means a person is able to use health care services in a timely manner to achieve positive health outcomes. This implies that a person can enter the health care system, physically get to a place where they can receive health care, and find physicians whom they trust and who can provide the needed services.

Indeed, there are differing opinions on what constitutes “access”, and this heterogeneity is further compounded by the multiple barriers to access. For example, with the recent AHCA proposal, many representatives spoke about separating the concepts of health care coverage and health care access, while others believe that the two are not separable. There are at least four factors that limit a person’s access to healthcare. The first barrier is the availability of health services; if the necessary health care is not provided within reasonable traveling distance of a person seeking services, none of the other factors matter. The other three factors are personal barriers such as a person’s perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about their own health and health care, organizational barriers such as referrals, waiting lists, and wait times, and financial barriers such as inability to afford insurance, copays, costs beyond deductibles, and lost wages.

The current policy in the United States is the Affordable Care Act, put into place under the Obama administration. One of the most contentious points of the law is its requirement that every person have health care coverage or pay a penalty. A 2015 survey released by the National Center for Health Statistics indicated a substantial drop in the percentage of the US population without insurance over the previous few years. There was a slight increase in the percentage of people with a usual place to go for health care (i.e. a primary care provider or clinic for regular check-ups), and a decrease in the number of people who failed to obtain needed health care due to cost, but simply requiring everyone to purchase health insurance did not induce a commensurate rise in people gaining access to health care, in accordance with the steps and measures discussed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Additionally, there have been substantial increases in premiums, which means that those consumers still have a significant financial barrier to health care.

The numbers and policies referenced above address the country as a whole, but statistics vary widely across regions of the United States. US News ranked states on their access to health care using six metrics: child wellness and dental visits, adult wellness and dental visits, health insurance enrollment, and health care affordability. Some examples of the ranges seen between states in these measures are that 20% of adults do not have regular checkups in the highest ranked states, while around 40% do not have regular checkups in the lowest ranked states. In the highest ranked state for affordability, the fraction of people who needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost was around 7%, while in the lowest ranked state this percentage was just under 20%. While some of this is due to the differing demographics and living conditions from state to state, the discretion and freedom that states have in applying health care laws also factor in.

When comparing to other similar (high-income) nations, the United States falls short on access to health care. Although the Affordable Care Act improved access to health insurance, the US is still lagging when it comes to its residents receiving actual care. This is partially due to fewer physicians practicing general medicine in the US. In 2013, the US ranked below all other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, except for Greece, for the density of general practitioners per 1,000 people. A related measure showed that the US also had a lower percentage of physicians choosing general practitioner/primary care as their specialty than all other 35 countries. These countries are all World Bank-categorized high-income countries except for Mexico and Turkey, which are upper middle-income (and had better stats than the US). This disparity has been noted in the US and is driven by many factors including physician salaries, patient loads, and medical education emphasis (or lack thereof) on primary care. This shortage also disproportionately affects rural areas, likely contributing to some of the state-to-state variability noted above.

The United States is struggling when compared with similar nations to provide health care access to its citizens. The reasons for this struggle are multifaceted, including access to health insurance, financial barriers, and lack of primary care physicians. The political tensions and opposing principles held by individuals can also be barriers to working toward a more accessible health care system. We should be focused on developing a health care system where all can reasonably obtain health insurance, where health care costs are not prohibitively expensive, and medical education should emphasize the importance of primary care in our nation’s health and communicate the need for practitioners in under-served areas. Shedding light on these areas for improvement will allow people to work together to address our weaknesses and create a system that improves and sustains the health of our nation.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 19, 2017 at 10:16 am

Science Policy Around the Web – May 5, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD

Healthcare Policy

House Passes Bill to Repeal and Replace the Affordable Care Act

Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear reported for the New York Times yesterday that Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that would undo a number of central elements of the Affordable Care Act. Only six weeks ago, House Republicans failed to gather enough support to even vote on the first version of this bill, which was predicted to eliminate insurance coverage for twenty-four million Americans over the next decade. Since that time, Republican lawmakers have modified the so-called American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to appeal to the more conservative members of the House – including provisions that would limit federal support of the Medicaid program, allow states to opt out of requiring that insurance cover services like maternity and emergency care, and also enable states to apply for waivers that would let insurance companies charge higher premiums for some individuals with pre-existing conditions. Like the first version, the bill that passed the House on Thursday does away with the ‘individual mandate’, which imposes a tax on people who can afford to buy insurance but do not – an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that was relatively unpopular but critical to ensure sustainability of the insurance markets. It also replaces government-subsidized insurance plans with tax credits between $2,000 and $4,000, depending on age. Other provisions in the bill would stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood for one year as well as eliminate taxes on high-income individuals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies that helped to fund the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, 217 Republicans voted in favor of the revised AHCA bill that will certainly  not provide healthcare insurance for everyone, without waiting for a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact on the federal deficit or on the American people. These representatives’ haste reveals that they care little about how the AHCA will actually affect their constituents’ lives, and Democrats are counting on voters remembering this in upcoming elections. (Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear, The New York Times)

Science Funding

NIH Funding Changes to Support More Early Career Investigators

The NIH budget has gradually declined over the last fourteen years, from $40 billion in 2003 to about $32 billion in 2017. Given that a proposed budget from the Trump administration for fiscal year 2018 would further cut funding for NIH by $5.8 billion, it is unlikely that funding for the NIH will increase dramatically in the coming years. To address these budget limitations, and in an attempt to do more with less, Jocelyn Kaiser reported for ScienceInsider this week that the National Institutes of Health will impose a cap on the number of grants awarded to investigators. In an open letter announcing the decision, NIH director, Francis Collins, writes that 40% of NIH funding is concentrated in the hands of 10% of NIH-funded investigators. He notes that this is not inherently problematic, except that many studies indicate that there are diminishing scientific returns on each additional dollar that is granted to any individual investigator. Under the new guidelines, investigators will be limited to a maximum of three R01-equivalent grants in order to support approximately 1,600 more grants to early career and mid-level researchers, who have been particularly affected by the declining NIH budget. While it is difficult to quantify scientific impact, the NIH decision is admirable for its intent to support diversity and efficiency in funding research. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Healthcare Policy – What’s in Store for Our Future Healthcare Needs?

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

       There’s no question that the US spends too much on healthcare – in 2015 it cost 18% of its GDP, equivalent to $3.2 trillion dollars. In fact, we spend more on healthcare to cover just 34% of our population via Medicare and Medicaid than other countries who cover their entire population with universal healthcare. Most people assume that this higher spending equals better health, but unfortunately this isn’t the case.

According to a 2015 Commonwealth Fund survey, the US has the highest infant mortality and obesity rates and the lowest life expectancy of the top 13 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. In addition, we have the highest rates of prescription drug use, amputation due to diabetes mismanagement, and the second highest death rate from ischemic heart disease. Our relatively small percentage (14.1%) of people over age 65 also have the highest rate of at least two chronic illnesses per person. These numbers are estimated to increase as baby boomers age, so the outlook isn’t good when considering how many elderly people we can expect to suffer from chronic health issues.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom – we are in the top 3rd for surviving cancer, boast the lowest smoking rates, and have the highest access to diagnostic imaging services (such as MRI and CT scans). In this light, it makes sense that we spend more, have better access to expensive technology, and use more expensive prescription drugs. Another way to slice the data paints a different picture. The sickest 5% of the population accounts for 50% of medical spending, and accounts for 60% of spending on prescription drugs. Together these data indicate that the US could be in better shape if we had a healthier population.

How could we make the population healthier? Let’s consider that the determinants for health are 30% genetics, 70% behavior, environment and social factors, only 10% is mediated by healthcare. Other OECD countries spend significantly more on social services such as supportive housing, employment programs, retirement and disability programs. Social services are especially beneficial for people in lower income brackets, who incidentally have the poorest health in the US. The life expectancy for the poorest Americans is about 13 years less than the wealthiest. Racial disparities also contribute to gaps in healthcare outcomes for Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indians/Alaskan Native Americans, all of whom experience worse medical care. The parameters measured included access to care, effective communication with medical staff, and a specific source of ongoing medical care, such as a primary care physician. It is estimated that these disparities amount to billions of dollars in economic loss – $35 billion in excess health care expenditures – for example, a trip to the emergency room for something that could be treated by better access to a primary care physician. Expanding Medicaid would increase medical access to poor and disadvantaged minority groups, for example, Blacks in the south. However, many states thatch have high at-risk populations decided not to expand Medicaid. Spending more on social services aimed at improving people’s health seems to be working in other OECD countries, and the National Academy of Medicine recommends the US increase spending in these areas.

Social services are unlikely to gain support from conservatives, so spending in this area is unlikely to be supported by the current administration. However, there are other areas in healthcare that can gain bipartisan support. 30% of medical expenses are considered wasteful – meaning they are for unnecessary services, fraud, and sky high pharmaceutical or administrative costs. Medicare has already saved billions of dollars by reducing overpayments to private insurers and tying medical provider payments to quality of care. Overall a goal of those involved in healthcare reform should seek to follow this example of prioritizing value over volume of care, which will translate to better outcomes at lower costs for patients and taxpayers.

So what did the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare) achieve since it was passed in 2010? In the time leading up to the ACA, 82% of the American public wanted healthcare reform. Private insurance premiums were rising 10% per year, and insurance didn’t have to cover expensive benefits, so many plans came without services like mental health or maternity care. Maternity care is not just a women’s issue, healthier pregnancies result in healthier babies who become part of our population. Before the ACA, 50 million (17%) of the population was uninsured; by 2016 20 million people had gained health insurance, leaving only 10% of our population uninsured. Women and people with pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage or charged more by insurance companies. Lifetime spending caps were removed, meaning if you were a sick baby in the ICU you can’t be denied coverage for the remainder of your life. The most popular part of the bill allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, which reduced the uninsured rate for young adults by 47%. Finally, tax credits made health insurance through exchanges more affordable for those at or below 400% of the federal poverty line.

Those are the good parts about the ACA – here’s the bad news.  High deductible plans have increased from 10% of plans offered in 2010 to 51% of plans in 2016, meaning people buying insurance can expect to pay at least the first $1,000 per year out of pocket. If it seems that premiums are jumping, they are: they rose 20% from 2011 to 2016. It’s easy to blame the ACA for rising premiums, but if we consider that premiums rose 10% per year before the ACA, 20% in 5 years doesn’t sound so bad. Some specific states are expecting huge increases, for example Oklahoma will see a 42% increase in 2016. Part of the reason premiums are rising is because healthcare gets more expensive each year – it outpaces inflation and wages. Insurance companies are also losing money because they have enrolled more sick, expensive people than they expected to when they set prices. The ACA attempted to mediate the sticker shock for insurance companies by setting up “risk corridors” to help shoulder the burden, but that part of the bill was scuttled for political reasons, and now insurance companies are passing the buck to consumers. Regarding taxes, under the ACA, those without insurance will face a penalty fee double that of the 2015 amounts.

A central campaign promise of Trump and Republicans was to repeal the ACA and provide better and more affordable coverage for all.  The American Health Care Act (AHCA) proposed several weeks ago by Republicans was a repeal and replace bill which was unpopular from the start. The AHCA was unpopular with conservatives for not going far enough to repeal the ACA, while moderates worried about the 20 million people, including their constituents, being denied or outpriced from insurance due to some elements of the bill. The AHCA removed the mandates requiring insurance companies to provide essential health benefits. This could lower premiums but insurers could also reduce services, leading to “junk plans”. Additionally, tax credits for people buying insurance would be significantly lower than current levels, making insurance too expensive for many middle-income people. Medicaid coverage was also proposed to shrink, resulting in less coverage for poor Americans. Finally, eliminating the community rating of the ACA would enable insurance companies to charge older and sicker people higher premiums, essentially pricing those who need insurance the most out of the market. The AHCA proposed to ameliorate this problem by providing larger tax credits to older individuals and setting up pools of high risk people subsidized by the government.

It is safe to assume that the Republican controlled House, Senate and the White House will try again to present bills that modify the ACA. However, it remains to be seen if they will try a bipartisan effort to fix certain parts of the bill that are flawed, or repeal and replace the ACA with something completely new.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 14, 2017 at 9:22 am

Science Policy Around the Web – March 18, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Joel Adu-Brimpong, BS

By James Tourtellotte, CBP Today [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Public Health Policy

Missing the Brush Strokes while Gazing at the Bigger Picture

Last Wednesday, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved a little-advertised bill called HR 1313, or the genetic testing bill, with partisan-line voting (all 22 republicans in favor and all 17 democrats opposed). Overshadowed by the highly publicized, contentious debate over the Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace efforts, this bill has remained largely undetected by the media as it traverses congress. This genetic testing bill would not only enable employers to require their employees to undergo genetic testing but also allow employers access to the genetic information, according to an article by STAT news. Employees refusing such requests could be at risk for thousands of dollars in penalties.

Current legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 2008 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), prohibit such authority by employers, preventing requests by employers for “underwriting purposes”, which include “basing insurance deductibles, rebates, rewards, or other financial incentives on completing a health risk assessment or health screenings.” Additionally, genetic information provided to employers must be de-identified and aggregated to protect individual identities.

The HR 1313 bill would circumvent current legislation by nullifying these protections as long as the genetic test requests are part of “workplace wellness programs.” Employers purport that the ADA and GINA are “not consistent with the well-established and employee protective wellness program regulatory framework under HIPAA.” They argue that the House bill will aid in aligning the ADA and GINA with laws about workplace wellness programs. Conversely, experts including Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and Nancy Cox, president of the American Society of Human Genetics, have come out against the bill. In an opposition letter to chairwoman Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and ranking member, Robert Scott, of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, critics of the bill state that “Workplace wellness programs are fully able to encourage healthy behaviors within the current legal framework: they need not collect and retain private genetic and medical information to be effective. Individuals ought not to be subject to steep financial pressures by their health plans or employers to disclose their own or their families’ genetic and medical information.” Nonetheless, with the possibility of such infringement, we remain lost in the bigger debate surrounding Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace efforts with little regard for subtle components like HR 1313. (Sharon Begley, STAT news)

Infectious Diseases

Here We Go Again? The Re-emergence of Yet Again, Another Arbovirus

The recent resurgence of arboviruses, or ARthropod-BOrne viruses, in the Americas is concerning. While the 1990’s saw the reemergence of Dengue and the West Nile, Chikungunya resurfaced in 2013 and, recently, Zika in 2015. With South and Central America and the Caribbean still reeling from the reemergence of these viruses, another arbovirus appears to be making a comeback. Over the past weeks, a fifth arbovirus has been detected. Per a perspective piece co-authored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious disease expert and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, there are on-going outbreaks of yellow fever in Brazil.

As of February 2017, there have been 234 reported cases and 80 confirmed deaths, with many other infections pending investigation. In context, the number of reported cases currently exceeds previously observed rates of infection for this time of the year. Regionally, the reported cases appear localized to rural areas in southeastern Brazil, chiefly Sao Paulo, Espirito Santo and Minas Gerais. According to the article, current cases appear to be “sylvatic” or jungle cases, with transmission occurring primarily between forest mosquitoes and non-human primates. Thus far, there is no evidence to suggest human-to-human transmission via the infamous Aedes aeqypti mosquito. Humans currently serve as “incidental hosts.” However, the propinquity of the affected areas to major urban centers in Brazil, where routine coverage of yellow fever vaccination is low, is alarming.

Experts posit that the likelihood of spread to the continental United States is low. However, they caution, “In an era of frequent international travel, any marked increase in domestic cases in Brazil raises the possibility of travel-related cases [anywhere].” A particularly poignant example in the article is the December 2015 large urban yellow fever outbreak in Angola and subsequent spread to the Congo. This led to an exhaustion of the world’s emergency supply of vaccines for epidemic response, “prompting health authorities to immunize inhabitants in some areas using one fifth of the standard does in order to extend vaccine supply.” Amidst these critical times of global health crises, threatened cuts to U.S. global health support will likely be catastrophic for developing nations. (Madison Park, CNN)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

March 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – August 5, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Fabrício Kury, MD

Genetic engineering

‘Gene drive’ organisms should be tested in field trials, not widely released, experts say

While the Zika virus shows spread into the US, with mosquito-borne transmission having been reported in Miami, the scientific community is eager to kick-start the use of the new biotechnology called Gene Drive. This technique allows for the creation of genes that cheat the trial of chance and get passed on to nearly 100% of the offspring. This way, it is possible to alter the genome of entire populations of species, for example, by making populations of Aedes mosquitoes unable to transmit the Zika or Malaria viruses — if not plainly kill all the Aedes.

The danger of Gene Drive is our lack of knowledge about the impact of drastic alterations in the behavior or biology of one species, and also the consequences from the quick removal of a pervasive species from an ecosystem. The slow progress of Zika into the U.S. through warmer and wetter edges such as Florida and Puerto Rico seems like a window of opportunity for attacking the spread of the disease while it is still relatively isolated. However, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine call for tightly controlled experiments before wide use of the gene drive. As MIT Media Lab professor Kevin Esvelt put it, “there is a nontrivial chance that [the genes] will spread from a single organism released into a wild population into most or all members of the local population — and very possibly into every population of the target species around the globe.” (Ike Swetlitz, STAT news)

Technology and Healthcare

Why lawmakers are trying to make ransomware a crime in California

Ransomware is a type of malware (a “virus”) that can make money for a hacker very quickly. The ransomware program encrypts files in the target computer, then demands a ransom, usually to be paid in cryptocurrency (the most popular is Bitcoin) which can be hard to track, to release the key that decrypts the files. Hospitals are perfect targets for ransomware attacks because they are often big institutions, are mostly unprepared to defend themselves against cybercrime, and hold precious data in its computers. Most often, ransomware makes the system of computers functionally “locked inside a black box” or completely unable to be used, creating mounting losses and outright risks that outweigh the price of the ransom.

This includes the medical data that is kept private inside those computers and becomes locked behind the ransomware’s military-grade encryption. Other times, the cyberattack consists of “kidnapping the privacy” of the patients. Here the hacker makes a copy of the data and requests a ransom not to release it to the public. In 2015 alone, 113 million patients had some or all of their health records stolen, and the hospital hacks showed increase of 600%. It has been called “The Year of the Hospital Hack.” Moreover, according to the FBI, ransomware as a broader industry is on the rise. In the first three months of 2016, victims of ransomware lost more than $209 million, compared to $25 million in the entire 2015. (Jazmine Ulloa, Los Angeles Times)

Affordable Care Act Effects

How I Was Wrong About ObamaCare

The strategy implemented by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, “ObamaCare”) for the purpose of controlling health care costs is one that strives for paying for healthcare by value provided instead of service provided. The promoted understanding, as summarized by former health policy advisor to the Obama administration Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, 2011, is that such force will pressure the health care industry to undergo vertical consolidation into Integrated Delivery Systems. These systems, whose likes could be named as Kaiser Permanente, Geisinger Health Care System, and Intermountain Healthcare, are consolidations of all types of providers (physician, imaging, therapy, nursing, surgery, home care, specialty care etc.) and strives to be at least internally coordinated to provide the best value per cost, since its payment is not completely tied to the number of procedures or services performed.

Two PPACA-derived value-based reimbursed programs were launched in 2012 — the smaller and more cautious Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations, reserved for groups of providers with more experience in integrated health care delivery, and the larger and more ambitious Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations. Their data has been released along the past year. The data shows that, along the first performance year of the Medicare Shared Savings Program, 58 ACOs generated $705 million in savings, feat which earned them $315 in bonuses as per the program’s workings, leaving net $260 million in savings to CMS. In April this year, the first study of the official CMS claims data indicated that the better savings were among the ACOs classified as small groups of providers. This is understood as evidence against the “Kaiserification” of healthcare as envisioned by Dr. Emmanuel, since the savings come not from having all providers as employees of a big conglomerate, but instead in giving more autonomy and power to the health care provider at the forefront of the contact with the patient. (Bob Kocher, Wall Street Journal)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 5, 2016 at 11:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – July 26, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Ian McWilliams, Ph.D.

photo credit: Newport Geographic via photopin cc

Infectious Diseases

Research charities help marry two major South African HIV/TB institutes

Two institutes, the Wellcome Trust and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), have announced that they are joining efforts in to fund the fight against HIV and Tuberculosis (TB) in South Africa. South Africa has the largest population infected with HIV. Because TB thrives in HIV-infected individuals, South Africa is experiencing a co-epidemic that has been challenging to battle. This collaboration will mark the first time that HHMI and The Wellcome Trust have worked together on a global health institution.

The new Africa Health Research Institute combines the Africa Centre for Population Health’s detailed population data gathered from over 100,000 participants with basic laboratory science and medical research of the KwaZulu-Natal Research Institute TB-HIV (K-RITH). Together the organization will work towards eliminating HIV and TB by training African scientists and will “link clinical and laboratory-based studies with social science, health systems research and population studies to make fundamental discoveries about these killer diseases, as well as demonstrating how best to reduce morbidity and mortality.” Projects funded by the institute include maintaining the longest running population-based HIV treatment as prevention (TasP) trial in Africa and using genomics to study drug resistant TB.

The organization is funded by a $50 million grant from The Wellcome Trust that is renewable over the next five years. Additionally, HHMI has already spent $40 million for the construction of new facilities, including a new biosafety level 3 laboratory that is designed to handle dangerous pathogens. These new efforts aim to apply scientific breakthroughs to directly help the local community. Deenan Pillay, the director of the new institute, has expressed his support of the organization’s mission by stating “There’s been increasing pressure and need for the Africa Centre not just to observe the epidemic but to do something about it. How long can you be producing bloody maps?” (Jon Cohen, ScienceInsider)

Scientific Reproducibility

Dutch agency launches first grants programme dedicate to replication

While a reproducibility crisis is on the minds of many scientists, the Netherlands have launched a new fund to encourage Dutch scientists to test the reproducibility of ‘cornerstone’ scientific findings. The €3 million fund was announced on July 19th by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and will focus on replicating work that “have a large impact on science, government policy or the public debate.”

The Replication Studies pilot program aims to increase transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting of results. Brian Nosek, who led studies to evaluate the reproducibility of over 100 reports from three different psychology journals, hailed the new program and stated “this is an increase of infinity percent of federal funding dedicated to replication studies.” This project is the first program in the world to focus on the replication of previous scientific findings. Dutch scientist Daniel Lakens further stated that “[t]his clearly signals that NWO feels there is imbalance in how much scientists perform replication research, and how much scientists perform novel research.” The NWO has stated that it intends to include replication in all of its research programs.

This pilot program will focus both on the reproduction of findings using datasets from the original study and replication of findings with new datasets gathered using the same research protocol in the original study. The program expects to fund 8-10 projects each year, and importantly, scientists will not be allowed to replicate their own work. The call for proposals will open in September with an expected deadline in mid-December. (Monya Baker, Nature News)

Health Care Insurance

US Sues to block Anthem-Cigna and Aetna-Human mergers

United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch has announced lawsuits to block two mergers that involve four of the largest health insurers. Co-plaintiffs in the suits include eight states, including Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinoi, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Main, Maryland, and New Hampshire, as well as the District of Columbia. The lawsuits are an attempt by the Justice Department to block Humana’s $37 billion merger with Aetna and Anthem’s $54 billion acquisition of Cigna, the largest merger in the history of health insurers. The Justice Department says that the deals violate antitrust laws and could mean fewer choices and higher premiums for Americans. Antitrust officials also expressed concern that doctors and hospitals could lose bargaining power in these mergers.

Both proposed mergers were announced last year, and if these transactions close, the number of national providers would be reduced from five to three large companies. Furthermore, the government says that Anthem and Cigna control at least 50 percent of the national employer-based insurance market. Lynch further added that “competition would be substantially reduced for hundreds of thousands of families and individuals who buy insurance on the public exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.” The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to encourage more competition between insurers to improve health insurance options and keep plans affordable. The Obama administration has closely watched the health care industry since the passing of that legislation and has previously blocked the mergers of large hospital systems and stopped the merger of pharmaceutical giants, such as the proposed merger of Pfizer and Allergan.

Health insurers argue that these mergers are necessary to make the health care system more efficient, and would allow doctors and hospitals to better coordinate medical care. In reaction to the announcement by the Justice Department, Aetna and Humana stated that they intend to “vigorously defend” the merger and that this move “is in the best interest of consumers, particularly seniors seeking affordable, high-quality Medicare Advantage plans.” Cigna has said it is evaluating its options. (Leslie Picker and Reed Abelson, New York Times)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 26, 2016 at 11:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – July 15, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Leopold Kong, Ph.D.

Healthcare Policy

United States Health Care Reform – Progress to Date and Next Steps

On Monday, President Obama published a special communication in The Journal of the American Medical Association summarizing the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during his tenure in office.  The report outlined the president’s initial motivations for health care reform, including his frustration over the relatively low insurance coverage across the US population when he first entered office, even though the U.S. was devoting over 16% of its economy to health care.  The report noted that since the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the uninsured population in the United States had stabilized to around 15% since the early 1990s.  With the creation of the ACA, the uninsured population has dropped 43% from 16% in 2010 to 9.1% in 2015.  Importantly, the health care reform has not decreased employment rates, while it has decreased insurance payment prices in the private sector by improving detection of health care fraud and by increasing insurance provider competition.  President Obama is optimistic that coverage will further expand, considering that many of the reforms that are part of the ACA have not yet reached their maximum effect. Policymakers must be on guard, however, against backtracking in the years ahead, considering there are continued attempts to repeal parts of the ACA. The report notes: “We need to continue to tackle special interest dollars in politics. But we also need to reinforce the sense of mission in health care that brought us an affordable polio vaccine and widely available penicillin.” (Barack Obama, JAMA)

HIV Health Policy

South Africa ushers in a new era for HIV

Next week, the International AIDS Conference returns to Durban, South Africa to discuss research and health care policy challenges in the country with the largest HIV epidemic in the world. Nearly 7 million people in South Africa have HIV, about 15% of the global HIV infected population. Remarkable progress has been made over the last two decades with the advent of more effective antiretroviral therapeutics and their wide dissemination.  South Africa’s average life expectancy has increased from 54.4 years in 2004 to 62.5 in 2015, and mother-to-child transmission has fallen from 30% to 1.5%.  Furthermore, AIDS-related deaths have been cut in half since 2006, from 400 to 200 thousands per year.  It is hopeful that continued gains in therapeutics accessibility would greatly improve the situation in South Africa, though substantial challenges remain. These include maintaining patient compliance in the face of a disease that no longer appears to be immediately life threatening, and dealing with the inevitable development of drug resistance that would require constant and costly patient monitoring.  Surprisingly, in South Africa, but not in Europe, people on therapy appeared to have better quality of life than their HIV-negative peers, highlighting the general benefit of increased interaction with health practitioners. Health policymakers in a country with over 3 million on antiretroviral therapy must also consider the side effects of the drugs, which include increased risk of hypertension, diabetes and obesity for older populations. With continued advances in small molecule and antibody therapeutics, as well as novel vaccine platforms, there is increased hope for millions of people living with HIV. (Linda Nordling, Nature)

NASA

First virus-hunter in space will test DNA-decoding device

Earlier this week, virus-hunter turned astronaut Kate Rubins arrived at the International Space Station with a pocket-sized DNA sequencer, the MinION (9.5 x 3.2 x 1.6 centimeters, ~ 120 grams) developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies.  Unlike conventional sequencers, the MinION “reads” DNA strands by passing them through nanopores on the device that detect changes in electrostatic charge.  The small size of MinION is important to curb expenses, as it costs about $10,000 per pound of equipment flown to the space station. “Altogether, it’s an extremely exciting research package and a great capability on board station,” Rubins said. NASA hopes this project will improve scientific microbial research and disease diagnostics in space.  The MinION technology may also be used to detect extraterrestrial life, though further development may be needed, especially if non-DNA based life forms are expected.  Importantly, the experiments in space could encourage the expansion of genomics-based medicine utilizing MinION technology to more remote and poorer areas on Earth where the use of large, conventional DNA sequencers would not be practical. (Marcia Dunn, Associated Press)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 15, 2016 at 1:45 pm