Effectiveness

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new section, as appropriate. (April 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Overviewedit

There is no general consensus as to whether or not preventive healthcare measures are cost-effective,according to whom? but they increase the quality of life dramatically. There are varying views on what constitutes a "good investment." Some argue that preventive health measures should save more money than they cost, when factoring in treatment costs in the absence of such measures. Others have argued in favor of "good value" or conferring significant health benefits even if the measures do not save money. Furthermore, preventive health services are often described as one entity though they comprise a myriad of different services, each of which can individually lead to net costs, savings, or neither. Greater differentiation of these services is necessary to fully understand both the financial and health effects.

A 2010 study reported that in the United States, vaccinating children, cessation of smoking, daily prophylactic use of aspirin, and screening of breast and colorectal cancers had the most potential to prevent premature death. Preventive health measures that resulted in savings included vaccinating children and adults, smoking cessation, daily use of aspirin, and screening for issues with alcoholism, obesity, and vision failure. These authors estimated that if usage of these services in the United States increased to 90% of the population, there would be net savings of $3.7 billion, which comprised only about -0.2% of the total 2006 United States healthcare expenditure. Despite the potential for decreasing healthcare spending, utilization of healthcare resources in the United States still remains low, especially among Latinos and African-Americans. Overall, preventive services are difficult to implement because healthcare providers have limited time with patients and must integrate a variety of preventive health measures from different sources.

While these specific services bring about small net savings, not every preventive health measure saves more than it costs. A 1970s study showed that preventing heart attacks by treating hypertension early on with drugs actually did not save money in the long run. The money saved by evading treatment from heart attack and stroke only amounted to about a quarter of the cost of the drugs. Similarly, it was found that the cost of drugs or dietary changes to decrease high blood cholesterol exceeded the cost of subsequent heart disease treatment. Due to these findings, some argue that rather than focusing healthcare reform efforts exclusively on preventive care, the interventions that bring about the highest level of health should be prioritized.

In 2008, Cohen et al. outlined a few arguments made by skeptics of preventive healthcare. Many argue that preventive measures only cost less than future treatment when the proportion of the population that would become ill in the absence of prevention is fairly large. The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group conducted a 2012 study evaluating the costs and benefits in quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs of lifestyle changes versus taking the drug metformin. They found that neither method brought about financial savings, but were cost-effective nonetheless because they brought about an increase in QALYs. In addition to scrutinizing costs, preventive healthcare skeptics also examine efficiency of interventions. They argue that while many treatments of existing diseases involve use of advanced equipment and technology, in some cases, this is a more efficient use of resources than attempts to prevent the disease. Cohen suggested that the preventive measures most worth exploring and investing in are those that could benefit a large portion of the population to bring about cumulative and widespread health benefits at a reasonable cost.

Cost-effectiveness of childhood obesity interventionsedit

There are at least four nationally implemented childhood obesity interventions in the United States: the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage excise tax (SSB), the TV AD program, active physical education (Active PE) policies, and early care and education (ECE) policies. They each have similar goals of reducing childhood obesity. The effects of these interventions on BMI have been studied, and the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has led to a better understanding of projected cost reductions and improved health outcomes. The Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Study (CHOICES) was conducted to evaluate and compare the CEA of these four interventions.

Gortmaker, S.L. et al. (2015) states: "The four initial interventions were selected by the investigators to represent a broad range of nationally scalable strategies to reduce childhood obesity using a mix of both policy and programmatic strategies... 1. an excise tax of $0.01 per ounce of sweetened beverages, applied nationally and administered at the state level (SSB), 2. elimination of the tax deductibility of advertising costs of TV advertisements for "nutritionally poor" foods and beverages seen by children and adolescents (TV AD), 3. state policy requiring all public elementary schools in which physical education (PE) is currently provided to devote ≥50% of PE class time to moderate and vigorous physical activity (Active PE), and 4. state policy to make early child educational settings healthier by increasing physical activity, improving nutrition, and reducing screen time (ECE)."

The CHOICES found that SSB, TV AD, and ECE led to net cost savings. Both SSB and TV AD increased quality adjusted life years and produced yearly tax revenue of 12.5 billion US dollars and 80 million US dollars, respectively.

Some challenges with evaluating the effectiveness of child obesity interventions include:

1. The economic consequences of childhood obesity are both short and long term. In the short term, obesity impairs cognitive achievement and academic performance. Some believe this is secondary to negative effects on mood or energy, but others suggest there may be physiological factors involved. Furthermore, obese children have increased health care expenses (e.g. medications, acute care visits). In the long term, obese children tend to become obese adults with associated increased risk for a chronic condition such as diabetes or hypertension. Any effect on their cognitive development may also affect their contributions to society and socioeconomic status.
2. In the CHOICES, it was noted that translating the effects of these interventions may in fact differ among communities throughout the nation. In addition it was suggested that limited outcomes are studied and these interventions may have an additional effect that is not fully appreciated.
3. Modeling outcomes in such interventions in children over the long term is challenging because advances in medicine and medical technology are unpredictable. The projections from cost-effective analysis may need to be reassessed more frequently.

Economics of US preventive careedit

As of 2009, the cost-effectiveness of preventive care is a highly debated topic. While some economists argue that preventive care is valuable and potentially cost saving, others believe it is an inefficient waste of resources. Preventive care is composed of a variety of clinical services and programs including annual doctor's check-ups, annual immunizations, and wellness programs; recent models show that these simple interventions can have significant economic impacts.

Clinical preventive services & programsedit

Research on preventive care addresses the question of whether it is cost saving or cost effective and whether there is an economics evidence base for health promotion and disease prevention. The need for and interest in preventive care is driven by the imperative to reduce health care costs while improving quality of care and the patient experience. Preventive care can lead to improved health outcomes and cost savings potential. Services such as health assessments/screenings, prenatal care, and telehealth and telemedicine can reduce morbidity or mortality with low cost or cost savings. Specifically, health assessments/screenings have cost savings potential, with varied cost-effectiveness based on screening and assessment type. Inadequate prenatal care can lead to an increased risk of prematurity, stillbirth, and infant death. Time is the ultimate resource and preventive care can help mitigate the time costs. Telehealth and telemedicine is one option that has gained consumer interest, acceptance and confidence and can improve quality of care and patient satisfaction.

Economics for investmentedit

There are benefits and trade-offs when considering investment in preventive care versus other types of clinical services. Preventive care can be a good investment as supported by the evidence base and can drive population health management objectives. The concepts of cost saving and cost-effectiveness are different and both are relevant to preventive care. For example, preventive care that may not save money may still provide health benefits. Thus, there is a need to compare interventions relative to impact on health and cost.

Preventive care transcends demographics and is applicable to people of every age. The Health Capital Theory underpins the importance of preventive care across the lifecycle and provides a framework for understanding the variances in health and health care that are experienced. It treats health as a stock that provides direct utility. Health depreciates with age and the aging process can be countered through health investments. The theory further supports that individuals demand good health, that the demand for health investment is a derived demand (i.e. investment is health is due to the underlying demand for good health), and the efficiency of the health investment process increases with knowledge (i.e. it is assumed that the more educated are more efficient consumers and producers of health).

The prevalence elasticity of demand for prevention can also provide insights into the economics. Demand for preventive care can alter the prevalence rate of a given disease and further reduce or even reverse any further growth of prevalence. Reduction in prevalence subsequently leads to reduction in costs.

There are a number of organizations and policy actions that are relevant when discussing the economics of preventive care services. The evidence base, viewpoints, and policy briefs from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and efforts by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) all provide examples that improve the health and well-being of populations (e.g. preventive health assessments/screenings, prenatal care, and telehealth/telemedicine). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, ACA) has major influence on the provision of preventive care services, although it is currently under heavy scrutiny and review by the new administration. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the ACA makes preventive care affordable and accessible through mandatory coverage of preventive services without a deductible, copayment, coinsurance, or other cost sharing.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine, works to improve health of Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services. They do not consider the cost of a preventive service when determining a recommendation. Each year, the organization delivers a report to Congress that identifies critical evidence gaps in research and recommends priority areas for further review.

The National Network of Perinatal Quality Collaboratives (NNPQC), sponsored by the CDC, supports state-based perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) in measuring and improving upon health care and health outcomes for mothers and babies. These PQCs have contributed to improvements such as reduction in deliveries before 39 weeks, reductions in healthcare associated bloodstream infections, and improvements in the utilization of antenatal corticosteroids.

Telehealth and telemedicine has realized significant growth and development recently. The Center for Connected Health Policy (The National Telehealth Policy Resource Center) has produced multiple reports and policy briefs on the topic of Telehealth and Telemedicine and how they contribute to preventive services.

Policy actions and provision of preventive services do not guarantee utilization. Reimbursement has remained a significant barrier to adoption due to variances in payer and state level reimbursement policies and guidelines through government and commercial payers. Americans use preventive services at about half the recommended rate and cost-sharing, such as deductibles, co-insurance, or copayments, also reduce the likelihood that preventive services will be used. Further, despite the ACA's enhancement of Medicare benefits and preventive services, there were no effects on preventive service utilization, calling out the fact that other fundamental barriers exist.

The Affordable Care Act and preventive healthcare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as just the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, was passed and became law in the United States on March 23, 2010. The finalized and newly ratified law was to address many issues in the U.S. healthcare system, which included expansion of coverage, insurance market reforms, better quality, and the forecast of efficiency and costs. Under the insurance market reforms the act required that insurance companies no longer exclude people with pre-existing conditions, allow for children to be covered on their parents' plan until the age of 26, and expand appeals that dealt with reimbursement denials. The Affordable Care Act also banned the limited coverage imposed by health insurances, and insurance companies were to include coverage for preventive health care services. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has categorized and rated preventive health services as either ‘”A” or “B”, as to which insurance companies must comply and present full coverage. Not only has the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provided graded preventive health services that are appropriate for coverage, they have also provided many recommendations to clinicians and insurers to promote better preventive care to ultimately provide better quality of care and lower the burden of costs.

Health insuranceedit

Healthcare insurance companies are willing to pay for preventive care despite the fact that patients are not acutely sick in hope that it will prevent them from developing a chronic disease later on in life. Today, health insurance plans offered through the Marketplace, mandated by the Affordable Care Act are required to provide certain preventive care services free of charge to patients. Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, specifies that all private Marketplace and all employer-sponsored private plans (except those grandfathered in) are required to cover preventive care services that are ranked A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force free of charge to patients. For example, UnitedHealthcare insurance company has published patient guidelines at the beginning of the year explaining their preventive care coverage.

Evaluating incremental benefitsedit

Evaluating the incremental benefits of preventive care requires a longer period of time when compared to acutely ill patients. Inputs into the model such as discounting rate and time horizon can have significant effects on the results. One controversial subject is use of a 10-year time frame to assess cost effectiveness of diabetes preventive services by the Congressional Budget Office.

Preventive care services mainly focus on chronic disease. The Congressional Budget Office has provided guidance that further research is needed in the area of the economic impacts of obesity in the US before the CBO can estimate budgetary consequences. A bipartisan report published in May 2015 recognizes the potential of preventive care to improve patients' health at individual and population levels while decreasing the healthcare expenditure.

Economic caseedit

Mortality from modifiable risk factors

Chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity and cancer have become the most common and costly health problems in the United States. In 2014, it was projected that by 2023 that the number of chronic disease cases would increase by 42%, resulting in $4.2 trillion in treatment and lost economic output. They are also among the top ten leading causes of mortality. Chronic diseases are driven by risk factors that are largely preventable. Sub-analysis performed on all deaths in the United States in the year 2000 revealed that almost half were attributed to preventable behaviors including tobacco, poor diet, physical inactivity and alcohol consumption. More recent analysis reveals that heart disease and cancer alone accounted for nearly 46% of all deaths. Modifiable risk factors are also responsible for a large morbidity burden, resulting in poor quality of life in the present and loss of future life earning years. It is further estimated that by 2023, focused efforts on the prevention and treatment of chronic disease may result in 40 million fewer chronic disease cases, potentially reducing treatment costs by $220 billion.

Childhood vaccinations

Childhood immunizations are largely responsible for the increase in life expectancy in the 20th century. From an economic standpoint, childhood vaccines demonstrate a very high return on investment. According to Healthy People 2020, for every birth cohort that receives the routine childhood vaccination schedule, direct health care costs are reduced by $9.9 billion and society saves $33.4 billion in indirect costs. The economic benefits of childhood vaccination extend beyond individual patients to insurance plans and vaccine manufacturers, all while improving the health of the population.

Health capital theory

The burden of preventable illness extends beyond the healthcare sector, incurring costs related to lost productivity among workers in the workforce. Indirect costs related to poor health behaviors and associated chronic disease costs U.S. employers billions of dollars each year.

According to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), medical costs for employees with diabetes are twice as high as for workers without diabetes and are caused by work-related absenteeism ($5 billion), reduced productivity at work ($20.8 billion), inability to work due to illness-related disability ($21.6 billion), and premature mortality ($18.5 billion). Reported estimates of the cost burden due to increasingly high levels of overweight and obese members in the workforce vary, with best estimates suggesting 450 million more missed work days, resulting in $153 billion each year in lost productivity, according to the CDC Healthy Workforce.

The Health Capital model explains how individual investments in health can increase earnings by “increasing the number of healthy days available to work and to earn income.” In this context, health can be treated both as a consumption good, wherein individuals desire health because it improves quality of life in the present, and as an investment good because of its potential to increase attendance and workplace productivity over time. Preventive health behaviors such as healthful diet, regular exercise, access to and use of well-care, avoiding tobacco, and limiting alcohol can be viewed as health inputs that result in both a healthier workforce and substantial cost savings.

Quality adjusted life years

Health benefits of preventive care measures can be described in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved. A QALY takes into account length and quality of life, and is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of medical and preventive interventions. Classically, one year of perfect health is defined as 1 QALY and a year with any degree of less than perfect health is assigned a value between 0 and 1 QALY. As an economic weighting system, the QALY can be used to inform personal decisions, to evaluate preventive interventions and to set priorities for future preventive efforts.

Cost-saving and cost-effective benefits of preventive care measures are well established. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation evaluated the prevention cost-effectiveness literature, and found that many preventive measures meet the benchmark of <$100,000 per QALY and are considered to be favorably cost-effective. These include screenings for HIV and chlamydia, cancers of the colon, breast and cervix, vision screening, and screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men >60 in certain populations. Alcohol and tobacco screening were found to be cost-saving in some reviews and cost-effective in others. According to the RWJF analysis, two preventive interventions were found to save costs in all reviews: childhood immunizations and counseling adults on the use of aspirin.

Minority populations

Health disparities are increasing in the United States for chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Populations at heightened risk for health inequities are the growing proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, American Indians, Hispanics/Latinos, Asian Americans, Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders.

According to the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH), a national CDC program, non-Hispanic blacks currently have the highest rates of obesity (48%), and risk of newly diagnosed diabetes is 77% higher among non-Hispanic blacks, 66% higher among Hispanics/Latinos and 18% higher among Asian Americans compared to non-Hispanic whites. Current U.S. population projections predict that more than half of Americans will belong to a minority group by 2044. Without targeted preventive interventions, medical costs from chronic disease inequities will become unsustainable. Broadening health policies designed to improve delivery of preventive services for minority populations may help reduce substantial medical costs caused by inequities in health care, resulting in a return on investment.

Policies

Chronic disease is a population level issue that requires population health level efforts and national and state level public policy to effectively prevent, rather than individual level efforts. The United States currently employs many public health policy efforts aligned with the preventive health efforts discussed above. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention support initiatives such as Health in All Policies and HI-5 (Health Impact in 5 Years), collaborative efforts that aim to consider prevention across sectors and address social determinants of health as a method of primary prevention for chronic disease. Specific examples of programs targeting vaccination and obesity prevention in childhood are discussed in the sections to follow.

Obesity

Policies that address the obesity epidemic should be proactive and far-reaching, including a variety of stakeholders both in healthcare and in other sectors. Recommendations from the Institute of Medicine in 2012 suggest that “…concerted action be taken across and within five environments (physical activity (PA), food and beverage, marketing and messaging, healthcare and worksites, and schools) and all sectors of society (including government, business and industry, schools, child care, urban planning, recreation, transportation, media, public health, agriculture, communities, and home) in order for obesity prevention efforts to truly be successful.”

There are dozens of current policies acting at either (or all of) the federal, state, local and school levels. Most states employ a physical education requirement of 150 minutes of physical education per week at school, a policy of the National Association of Sport and Physical Education. In some cities, including Philadelphia, a sugary food tax is employed. This is a part of an amendment to Title 19 of the Philadelphia Code, “Finance, Taxes and Collections”; Chapter 19-4100, “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, that was approved 2016, which establishes an excise tax of $0.015 per fluid ounce on distributors of beverages sweetened with both caloric and non-caloric sweeteners. Distributors are required to file a return with the department, and the department can collect taxes, among other responsibilities.

These policies can be a source of tax credits. For example, under the Philadelphia policy, businesses can apply for tax credits with the revenue department on a first-come, first-served basis. This applies until the total amount of credits for a particular year reaches one million dollars.

Recently, advertisements for food and beverages directed at children have received much attention. The Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) is a self-regulatory program of the food industry. Each participating company makes a public pledge that details its commitment to advertise only foods that meet certain nutritional criteria to children under 12 years old. This is a self-regulated program with policies written by the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded research to test the efficacy of the CFBAI. The results showed progress in terms of decreased advertising of food products that target children and adolescents.

Childhood immunization policies

Despite nationwide controversies over childhood vaccination and immunization, there are policies and programs at the federal, state, local and school levels outlining vaccination requirements. All states require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition for school attendance. However, currently 18 states allow exemptions for “philosophical or moral reasons.” Diseases for which vaccinations form part of the standard ACIP vaccination schedule are diphtheria tetanus pertussis (whooping cough), poliomyelitis (polio), measles, mumps, rubella, haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, influenza, and pneumococcal infections. These schedules can be viewed on the CDC website.

The CDC website describes a federally funded program, Vaccines for Children (VFC), which provides vaccines at no cost to children who might not otherwise be vaccinated because of inability to pay. Additionally, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is an expert vaccination advisory board that informs vaccination policy and guides on-going recommendations to the CDC, incorporating the most up-to-date cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit evidence in its recommendations.