Will Prevention Save Money? (Text Version) Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2009 Annual ConferencSlide presentation from the AHRQ 2009 conference. Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2009 Annual ConferenceOn September 15, 2009, Steven Woolf made this presentation at the 2009 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (5 MB) (Plugin Software Help).Slide 1 Will Prevention Save Money?Reforming Disease Prevention and Health PromotionAHRQ 2009 Annual ConferenceBethesda, MarylandSeptember 15, 2009 Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPHDirector, VCU Center on Human NeedsProfessor, Department of Family MedicineVirginia Commonwealth University Slide 2 A Closer Look at the Economic Argument for Disease PreventionImage: The first page of a journal articles titles "A Closer Look at the Economic Argument for Disease Prevention." Slide 3 Projected Spending on Health Care as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product.Image: Line graph shows projection of Medicare costs rising from 3% of Gross Domestic Product in 2007 to over 10% by 2082; Medicaid rises from 4% to 15% during the same period. All other health care rises from 15% to nearly 50% by 2082.Source: Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Outlook for Health Care Spending, 2007 Slide 4 Figure 1. Percentage of the Population with Chronic Diseases, 1995-2030Image: Bar graph shows projection of persons with two or more chronic illnesses rising from 21.3% in 1995 to 25.9% by 2030. The percentage of chronically ill persons is projected to rise from 44.7% to 49.2% during that same period.Source: O'Grady MJ, Capretta JC. Health-Care Cost Projections for Diabetes and other Chronic Diseases: The Current Context and Potential Enhancements. Washington, DC: Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, 2009. Slide 5 Two-thirds of the increase in health care spending is due to increased prevalence of treated chronic diseaseImage shows the following data:~$211 billion increase in level of health spending among the noninstitutionalized U.S. population, 1987-2000, from $313.5 billion to $627.9 billion.This increase attributable to rise in prevalence of treated chronic disease (in billions of nominal dollars) Slide 6 The doubling of obesity between 1987 and today accounts for nearly 30% of the rise in health care spendingThe percent of children and youth who are overweight has tripled since 1980.If the prevalence of obesity was the same today as 1987, health care spending in the U.S. would be 10 percent lower per person—about $200 billion less.Image: Map of the United States showing percent of adults who are obese by state according to 1995 data. Slide 7 The Logic of Prevention38% of all U.S. deaths attributable to 4 behaviors*: Tobacco useDietPhysical inactivityAlcohol misuseFor some, health argument is reason enough to invest in prevention*Mokdad et al., 2001 Slide 8 The Price Paid for Not Preventing DiseasesHealth outcomes Illness: Morbidity, frequency/severity of illness, functional status, quality of lifeLives lost: Mortality, life expectancy, healthy years of life lost Slide 9 The Full Price of Not Preventing DiseasesHealth outcomes Illness: Morbidity, frequency/severity of illness, functional status, quality of lifeLives lost: Mortality, life expectancy, healthy years of life lostResource consumption Costs of avertable disease Excess medical careStresses on broader economy, societal costsGetting less for the dollar Slide 10 "In 2001... spending for health care per person of normal weight was $2,783, compared with $3,737 per obese person and $4,725 per morbidly obese person.A rise in the prevalence of obesity is therefore a likely contributor to the growth of health care spending." Statement of Peter R. Orszag, Director, CBO, Growth in Health Care Costs, before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, January 31, 2008 Slide 11 Tobacco: ResultsImage: Line graph shows the "Prevalence of Smoking among National, Minnesota, and Blue Cross Member Populations." The prevelance of smoking has decreases in all populations. Slide 12 Blue Cross savingsThe decrease in smoking rates among our members results in: At least $25 million less in health care costs each yearAverage annual savings per additional nonsmoker = $1,067 Slide 13 The Politics of PreventionCancer screening and other measures for heading off disease don't always reduce health-care costs. Slide 14 The Importance of ValueHealth is a goodGoods are not purchased to save money; there is no free lunch Slide 15 Image: Picture of grocery store, restaurant, car wrapped in bow, gas station. Slide 16 Picture of jet landing on aircraft carrier. Slide 17 Picture of airport security screening. Slide 18 Picture of space shuttle. Slide 19 The Importance of ValueHealth is a goodGoods are not purchased to save money; there is no free lunchThe priority is optimizing value: making the dollar go fartherMoney is saved relative to competing optionsReturn on investment is what matters; whether a service is preventive or otherwise is not the point Slide 20 Will it Save Money?The Wrong Question Slide 21 Controlling Costs by Optimizing Value Slide 22 Return on InvestmentImages: A pot of gold, and a number of graphic figures representing people. Slide 23 Return on InvestmentCost-benefitCost-effectivenessCost-utilityCost-effectiveness ratio:Cost ($) civided by Health Benefit Slide 24 Health Care ExpendituresCost Saving(CE ratio ≤0)High value care(<$50,000/LY)Low value care($50,000-$1,000,000/LY) Slide 25 Health Care ExpendituresCost Saving(CE ratio ≤0)High value care(&$50,000/LY)Low value care($50,000-$1,000,000/LY)An arrow points up to "Cost Saving" and another arrow points from "Low value care " to "High value care." Slide 26 Health Care ExpendituresCost Saving(CE ratio ≤0)High value care(<$50,000/LY)Low value care($50,000-$1,000,000/LY)Arrows point back and forth between the three components. Slide 27 Health Care ExpendituresCost Saving(CE ratio ≤0)High value care(<$50,000/LY)Low value care($50,000-$1,000,000/LY)Arrows point back and forth between the three components. Slide 28 Return on InvestmentImages: A pot of gold, and a number of graphic figures representing people. Slide 29 Return on InvestmentImages: A pot of gold, and a number of graphic figures representing people—twice the number of figures seen in previous slide. Slide 30 Areas of Consensus1. A core set of preventive services is effective2. Evidence-based preventive services offer high economic value3. A subset of core preventive services yields net savings4. Some preventive services, like many disease treatments, offer poor economic value Slide 31 1. A Core Set of Preventive Services is EffectiveImages: Covers of three preventive services publications. Slide 32 2. Evidence-Based Preventive Services Offer High Economic ValueScreening Breast cancerCervical cancerChlamydia infectionColorectal cancerHypertensionProblem drinking*Poor vision*Health behavior counseling Smoking cessation*Calcium supplementationFolic acid useInjury prevention among childrenImmunizations (vaccines)*Chemoprophylaxis—Aspirin use (high-risk adults)** Net cost savings in certain groups.Source: Am J Prev Med 2006;31(1):52-61 Slide 33 Most Cost Effective Preventive Services$0 to $13,999/QALY:Chlamydia screening (sexually active adolescents and young women)Colorectal cancer screening (adults 50+)Influenza immunization (adults 50+)Pneumococcal immunization (adults 65+)Vision screening in preschool age children Slide 34 Most Cost Effective Preventive Services$14,000 to $34,999/QALY:Cervical cancer screening (all women)Counseling women of childbearing age to take folic acid supplementsCounseling women to use calcium supplementsInjury prevention counseling for parents of young childrenHypertension screening (all adults) Slide 35 3. A Subset of Core Preventive Services Yields Net SavingsAspirin prophylaxis among persons at risk for cardiovascular diseaseChildhood immunizationsSmoking cessation & smoking cessation counselingScreening for problem drinkingVision screening among seniorsSource: Am J Prev Med 2006;31(1):52-61 Slide 36 4. Some Preventive Services(Like Many Disease Treatments)Offer Poor Economic ValueWhen effectiveness or safety is uncertainWhen the absolute probability of benefit is low Low-risk patientsFrequent rescreeningAggressive treatment targets Slide 37 The Importance of ContextWho is doing the preventive intervention?IndividualsHealth care systemCommunity-based programs Slide 38 What is Prevention? Primary PreventionSecondary PreventionTertiary PreventionClinicalPreventionBehavioral counseling by physiciansTesting by physicians for early detection of cancer, heart disease, etc.Chronic illness care and disease management by physiciansCommunityPopulation-BasedAltering the community and environment to promote healthy lifestylesScreening fairs and other community venues for disease testingSelf-care; disease management at home, work, school Slide 39 Questions About the Economics of PreventionHow much time do interventions and outcomes require?Are the absolute benefits on the population level too modest?Does prevention delay but not avert spending?Does it cost more if people live longer? Slide 40 Economic Advantages of Preventive InterventionsSingle risk factors influence multiple diseasesLong time horizon is an opportunity for "compounding" of benefits (e.g., childhood obesity)Intangible benefits of good health (longer, healthier life; workforce productivity; competitiveness; broader societal effects) Slide 41 Avertable CostsImage: Figure 4: The Budget Window and Disease Progression. Type 2 Diabetes and Glucose Control Efforts. Average Annual Costs Averted from Complications—2007$. Line graph shows that while Conventional Protocol rises from $300 to $500 during the 10 Year "Budget Window," Intensive Protocol rises from $300 to $900; further, while Conventional Protocol will rise to $1,000 in the next 10 years, Intensive Protocol will rise to $2,250.Source: O'Grady MJ, Capretta JC. Health-Care Cost Projections for Diabetes and other Chronic Diseases: The Current Context and Potential Enhancements. Washington, DC: Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, 2009. Slide 42 Community-Based PreventionMany community-based preventive measures are (a) effective, and (b) offer high economic value, and (c) some produce net savingsSome community or public health measures outperform clinical interventionsCollaborations between clinical and community interventions offer high yield Slide 43 Tobacco: Major activitiesTobacco tax increasesPassage and defense of smoke-free lawsMass media campaignsCessation support for Blue Cross membersOutreach to high priority populations Slide 44 Physical activity: Current activitiesDo campaignActive Living MinnesotaComplete StreetsActive Workplaces Slide 45 The do campaign—workplace signsImages: Signs encourage workers to use the stairs. Slide 46 Sample ads—in stores, billboards, etc.Image: Poster encourages people to buy fruits and vegetables to help prevent cancer. Slide 47 Physical environment influences behaviorImages: Poster featuring a bulldozer, and photograph of people walking and riding bicycles beside a freeway. Slide 48A comprehensive approach integrated across all initiatives.Image: chart presents the following points arrayed in a circle around a central circle that reads, "All foods are not created equal. Some are life-saving."InterventionsDemonstration projects with food industry customers: Schwan, SUPERVALU, Hormel; National produce partnershipInterventions6-8 communities and networks increase access to healthier foodsMulti-media campaign targets moms to prioritize FVInterventionsDietician and MD reimbursement, Coverage for treatment of obesity, weight mgmt, nutrition counseling, BMI mgmt incentivesInterventionsConsulting services, On-line resources, e-advising, worksite interventions with small employers, Weight management, Incentive based benefitsInterventionsStatewide surveillance, project evaluation, cost analysisInterventionsPeer-to-peer networks and youth advocate developmentInterventionsLocal zoningMenu labelingSchool food policiesState food policy councilCommunity & High Priority PopulationsMedia CampaignFood IndustryEmployersProvidersResearch & MeasurementPolicyYouth Slide 49 The Double Standard$2 Trillion Health Care Budget, United StatesFigure: Pie chart depicts the U.S. Health Care Budget; 2% is spent on prevention, 98% on other costs. Slide 50 Leveling the Playing FieldDoes the intervention improve health outcomes, and how strong is the evidence?If the intervention is effective, is it cost-effective (a good value)?Can other options achieve better results, or the same results at lower cost?Prevention (Images: fruits and vegetables; a jogger)Diagnostic Tests Treatments (Images: pills, a person undergoing an MRI scan) Slide 51 ConclusionThe spending crisis requires a comprehensive search for ways to shift spending from services of low economic value to those with high cost-effectiveness or net savings.Whether they are preventive or otherwise is not the point.What matters is getting good value on the dollar.It makes sense to invest in a core package of preventive services that are effective and offer good economic value.Services that yield net savings are obvious priorities, but shifting spending to high-value services offers the greatest gains.We can't afford to apply this test to prevention only and not to the rest of medical care. Slide 52 Contact detailsSteven H. Woolf, MD, MPHDepartment of Family MedicineVirginia Commonwealth University1200 East Broad StreetP.O. Box 980251Richmond, VA 23298-0251804-828-9625swoolf@vcu.edu Current as of December 2009 Internet Citation: Will Prevention Save Money? (Text Version): Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2009 Annual Conferenc. December 2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/conference/2009/woolf/index.html