Person:

Chandra, Amitabh

Facets of the post-natal environment including the type and complexity of environmental stimuli, the quality of parenting behaviors, and the amount and type of stress experienced by a child affects brain and behavioral functioning. Poverty is a type of pervasive experience that is likely to influence biobehavioral processes because children developing in such environments often encounter high levels of stress and reduced environmental stimulation. This study explores the association between socioeconomic status and the hippocampus, a brain region involved in learning and memory that is known to be affected by stress. We employ a voxel-based morphometry analytic framework with region of interest drawing for structural brain images acquired from participants across the socioeconomic spectrum (n = 317). Children from lower income backgrounds had lower hippocampal gray matter density, a measure of volume. This finding is discussed in terms of disparities in education and health that are observed across the socioeconomic spectrum.

BACKGROUND: Improving the health of minority patients who have diabetes depends in part on improving quality and reducing disparities in ambulatory care. It has been difficult to measure these components at the level of actionable units. OBJECTIVE: To measure ambulatory care quality and racial disparities in diabetes care across groups of physicians who care for populations of ambulatory diabetes patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective cohort analysis using administrative data. SUBJECTS: Using fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 2003 to 2005, we link patients to their principal ambulatory care physician. The patients are then linked to the hospital where their physicians work or have their patients admitted, creating physician-hospital networks. MEASURES: Proportion of recommended diabetes testing received by black and nonblack diabetes patients. RESULTS: Blacks received 70% of recommended care compared with nonblacks who received 76.9% (P < 0.001). However, for black and nonblack patients, variation in the quality of care exceeds the racial gap in treatment. The network-specific performance rates for blacks and nonblacks were highly correlated (r = 0.67, P < 0.001), but 47% of blacks, versus 31% of nonblacks, received care from the third of networks with lowest quality. Physician-hospital networks with higher overall quality, or patients with higher socioeconomic status, were no less likely to exhibit black-white disparities. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to measure, benchmark, and monitor the quality of minority care at the level of networks responsible for ambulatory care. Consequently, it should be easier to provide patients with information on network performance and to design policies that improve the quality of minority-serving providers.

Much of the current debate about expanding health insurance coverage avoids addressing an uncomfortable trade-off: with a limited budget, making benefits more generous means being able to cover fewer people. Moreover, designing insurance benefits that are limited to coverage of higher-value care but are extended to more people will generate greater improvements in health than providing unlimited care for fewer people. Policymakers and patient advocates are reluctant to acknowledge that in a world of scarce resources it will not be enough to eliminate waste: we will have to make active choices in our public insurance programs between increasing the number of people covered and increasing the generosity of that coverage.

In the Medicare program, increases in cost sharing by a supplemental insurer can exert financial externalities. We study a policy change that raised patient cost sharing for the supplemental insurer for retired public employees in California. We find that physician visits and prescription drug usage have elasticities that are similar to those of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment (HIE). Unlike the HIE, however, we find substantial “offset” effects in terms of increased hospital utilization. The savings from increased cost sharing accrue mostly to the supplemental insurer, while the costs of increased hospitalization accrue mostly to Medicare.

The United States spends substantially more on health care than most developed countries, yet leaves a greater share of the population uninsured. We suggest that incremental insurance expansions focused on addressing market failures will propagate inefficiencies and are not likely to facilitate active policy decisions that align with societal coverage goals. By instead defining a basic bundle of services that is publicly financed for all, while allowing individuals to purchase additional coverage, policymakers could both expand coverage and maintain incentives for innovation, fostering universal access to innovative care in an affordable system.

Regulators of new products confront a tradeoff between speeding a new product to market and collecting additional product quality information. The FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) provides an opportunity to understand if a regulator can use new policy to innovate around this tradeoff—i.e., whether it improved regulator productivity by allowing products to come to market more quickly without compromising quality. We find that the BTD program shortened clinical development times by 23 percent and did not impact the ex post safety profile of drugs with the designation. In exploring mechanisms, we find that the BTD program had the greatest impact on less experienced firms and was associated with reduced BTD clinical trial design complexity. The results suggest that targeted regulatory innovation can shorten R&D periods without compromising the quality of new products.

Emerging gene therapy and gene-editing technologies will have a growing impact on patient lives and health-care delivery. We analyzed a decade of data on clinical trials and venture capital investments to understand the likely trajectory of genetically focused therapies in the years ahead. The number of clinical trials and venture capital deals increased substantially from 2006–2017. We observed particularly notable growth in both industry-sponsored trials and trials involving specialty fields of drug development, including oncology, neurology, hematology, ophthalmology, and neurology. As the number of gene-therapy and gene-editing technologies continues to grow, we expect that such therapies will have a significant and heterogeneous impact on health-care delivery, including a shifting of resources from chronic disease management to more intense acute episodic care, an increase in the complexity of required intellectual property and manufacturing know-how, and the potential expansion of biopharmaceutical companies into service-based business models.

There are widespread differences in total factor productivity across producers in the U.S. and around the world. To help explain these variations, we devise a general test for misallocation in input choices – the underuse of effective inputs and overuse of ineffective ones. Misallocation implies that conditional on total input use, the return to using a particular input is not zero (a positive return implies underuse, and a negative return implies overuse). We measure misallocation across hospitals, where inputs and outputs are better measured than in other industries. Applying our test to a sample of 1.6 million Medicare beneficiaries with heart attacks (of which 436 thousand were admitted by ambulance), we reject the hypothesis of productive efficiency; moving a patient from a 10th percentile to a 90th percentile hospital with respect to misallocation, holding spending constant, is predicted to increase survival by 3.1 percentage points. With misallocation accounting for as much as 25 percent of the variation in hospital productivity, our results suggest that how the money is spent, rather than how much money is spent, is central to understanding productivity differences both in health care, and in the rest of the economy.