Posts Tagged ‘health disparities’
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!
By: Nivedita Sengupta, Ph.D.
According to American Cancer Society more than 8 million people worldwide die from cancer every year. The number of deaths worldwide from communicable diseases like malaria, HIV and AIDS is insignificant compared to the number of global deaths from cancers which is expected to cross the 13 million mark by 2030, making cancer the leading cause of death worldwide. Cancer as a non-communicable disease has long been considered a disease of developed countries, where people are more likely to succumb to long-term chronic diseases rather than dying from infectious diseases. However, according to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO) and American Cancer Society, of the 14.1 million new cancer cases reported worldwide in 2012, 6.1 million were from developed countries compared to 8 million in developing countries – and these numbers are still rising. The number of new cancer cases in developing countries is predicted to rise to 13.1 million by 2030. These discrepancies between developed and developing countries are also apparent in childhood cancers. Childhood cancers account for less than 1% of the total cases in developed countries but about 4% in developing countries. Considering that reliable data on incidence are only available for a fifth of the world population consisting of people in mostly high-income countries, the actual statistics on cancer in developing countries may be even higher making cancer a significant and growing health burden in developing countries.
Escalation of cancer cases in developing countries over the past years has resulted in an increase in cancer-related health care costs, building up a global financial burden due to cancer. In 2010, $290 billion was spent to treat 13.2 million new cancer cases worldwide and this spending is projected to increase to $458 billion by 2030. Despite a wealth of data on how to diagnose and treat cancer, funding for cancer remains a low priority in context of health spending for both developing countries and for the nations providing donations. Only 5% of global resources devoted to cancer are spent in developing countries. In 2014, total global funding for development assistance for health was $35.9 billion, and only 2% of that amount was allocated for assistance in the area of non-communicable diseases of which cancer is only one aspect. This sets up an untenable situation as developing countries do not have the resources to tackle the rising human cost of cancer within their borders and necessitates significant global interventions and funding.
One potential in-country way to combat and prevent many of the deaths from cancer could be by raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer among the general population, as well of awareness of proven ways to prevent cancer. A 2007 study on breast cancer in Malaysia found that 52.2% of newly diagnosed patients have stage III and IV cancers due to a lack of awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer leaving them to seek treatment further into the disease progression. Most of these women were from rural Malaysia, with little or no education. Earlier screening for these and other cancers could help prevent cancer deaths. The major cancer types found in the developing countries are breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. Many of these cancers respond to treatment if detected early and treated adequately. However due to lack of cancer diagnosis facilities, by the time cancer is detected in these poor people it progresses to a stage where palliative care becomes the only option. In another example, potentially up to 20% of cancer deaths in developing countries could be prevented by immunization against HBV and HPV infections. Public-private global health partnerships like GAVI Alliance have partly facilitated the availability of HPV vaccines in the poor countries such as Kenya, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Sierra Leone and the United Republic of Tanzaniato. However, poor people living in the middle income countries like China, Malaysia, India and Brazil are excluded from this initiative due to their country’s slightly higher income.
Another significant problem needing attention is a lack of proper infrastructure (in terms of equipment and people) for cancer treatment in developing countries. Currently, treatment options in developing countries are very limited and expensive. In developed countries people can have better health care coverage and access to up-to-date cancer care facilities and treatment, in addition to dedicated cancer research centers and specialists. Most developing countries have limited treatment centers with proper infrastructure and oncologists. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), even though 85% of the world’s population resides in developing countries, the average number of pieces of therapy radiation equipment in developing countries is only 0.4 units per million inhabitants, compared to more than six units per million inhabitants in developed countries. The few developing countries who are privileged enough to have access to radiotherapy equipment face considerable financial burdens in then providing the necessary training, equipment set-up and maintenance, protocols and quality control for proper usage of these machines for cancer treatment. Oncology and palliative care training is limited in medical schools and very few doctors and nurses can afford to have training outside their country resulting in lack of sufficiently trained staff in developing countries to deal with the increasing load of cancer cases.
Even treating cancer patients at all can be difficult in developing countries. Apart from expensive cancer drugs themselves, pain medications for palliative care like morphine are not easily available in these countries. Statistics show that 99.9% of cancer patients in developing countries are dying with untreated pain. 84% of the morphine used globally goes to the developed countries, leaving just 16% for the rest of the world. This is not because of limited morphine production but rather mainly because of onerously complicated and expensive narcotic supply regulations set by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). The structure of surveillance and accountability requirements implemented by INCB makes it almost impossible for poor nations to comply because of poor infrastructure and lack of educated people to handle issues necessary to comply with the regulatory needs. Moreover, country specific regulatory laws make it harder for the doctors to prescribe these medicines. All patients in need of pain relief could be helped if proper laws are implemented to gain access to pain medication and palliative care.
Drug companies themselves can help to address these health disparities in developing countries. On March 31st 2016, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) CEO Andrew Witty announced a series of new patent policies designed to make innovative GSK medicines available to more people living in under-developed and developing countries. The new polices have a special focus on improving access to cancer drugs specifically. In the policy, GSK plans to stop filing for patents on its molecules in 50 of the least developed and low-income countries. In developing lower-middle-income countries, GSK will continue to file for patents but will grant licenses to generics manufacturers. This will enable easier access to cheaper generic versions of GSK’s drugs in those countries for the treatment of cancer. Furthermore, GSK will submit patents on future cancer drugs it develops to the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). The MPP deals in large-scale licensing agreements between drug developing companies and generics manufacturers thus enabling greater access to medicines in up to 127 developing countries. GSK has been applauded for this venture and the initiative also reveals the growing awareness among people regarding the magnitude of disparities in cancer care around the world. However experts says that a lot more still needs to be done in terms of improving access to needed medications. Ironically, most of the world’s poor live in ‘middle income’ countries such as China, India and Brazil that are not included in these polices and therefore will not gain anything from these new measures.
To reduce the death burden due to cancer in developing countries significant funding is needed, and one key challenge is how to obtain that funding. International advocacy is required to mobilize the international community and individual governments to take action. A number of influential international advocates like the UN, WHO and IARC are already active and trying to form partnerships with international health professionals, non-government organizations (NGOs), and funding organizations to bridge the gap between funding and treatment. By taking the necessary steps in proper direction to strengthen cancer prevention, early detection, treatment and palliation, much can be done to help improve cancer control in developing countries.