Search

The fiscal regime implemented in Brazil with the constitutional amendment 95 (EC-95) of December 2016 froze primary expenditures for 20 years, including healthcare spending. Previous studies have estimated strong negative effects of this policy on the health of Brazilians. Although there has been a constant pressure to repeal EC-95, this policy is unlikely to be changed in the near future. Thus, there is also a need to take actions within its own terms in order to mitigate its harmful consequences on population health. Shedding light on the existing evidence about the impact of austerity on health, the present work discusses how decision-makers can use a formal framework of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation to tackle the amplified budgetary strain. Drawing on principles of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), efficiency can be improved by shifting spending from low-value to higher-value areas, avoiding the “across-the-board cut” caused by non-differential consideration of expenditures in a context of mismatched growth of demand and supply of healthcare. By evaluating opportunity costs of investment and disinvestment proposals on the basis of multiple criteria and marginal analysis, the Brazilian public healthcare system could obtain gains in value, achieving better performance and attenuating the relative decline in spending on health brought by an austerity scenario.

Background Implementing adequate strategies to assess the value of health services plays a central role in the effort to deal with the financial pressures faced by health care systems worldwide. This study aimed to understand which approaches to value assessment have been used in developed countries. Methods We conducted a rapid review and a gray literature search to identify value assessment frameworks. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. In addition, we developed an interpretive classification system to make sense of existing approaches. Results One thousand one hundred seventy-six references were identified and 38 papers were selected for full-review. Among these 38 articles, 22 distinct approaches to assess value of health care interventions were identified and classified according to four points: 1) use of single or multiple considerations to base value estimates; 2) use of disease-specific or generic criteria; 3) reliance on process-based or outcomes-based consideration; and 4) type of input and evidence considered. Conclusions The contextual nature of value assessment in health care becomes evident with the diversity of existing approaches. Despite the predominance of cases relying on the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the measure of value, this approach has not been sufficient to meet the needs of decision-makers. The use of multiple criteria has become more and more important, as well as the consideration of patient-reported measures. Considerations of costs are not always explicit and consistent. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4405-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Healthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research. Methods An online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate). Results We found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options. Conclusions Efforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused over half a million deaths worldwide. Brazil has been particularly impacted, registering more than 1.3 million infections and 57,000 deaths by late June 2020. Aggregate numbers of cases are essential in modeling the epidemic and planning responses; however, more detailed analysis of risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are needed. Our study provides an initial examination of characteristics associated with receiving a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19 among a nationally representative sample of Brazilians aged 50 and over. Data are derived from the second wave of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil) and a telephone follow-up survey to ELSI-Brazil participants, known as the ELSI-COVID-19 initiative. The telephone survey was conducted between 26 May and 8 June 2020. Results show that about 2.4% (n = 70) of the sample reported being told by a doctor they had COVID-19, however, only about half of these individuals (n = 37) reported receiving a diagnostic confirmation from viral testing (RT-PCR). Demographic factors (aged 50-60 years), socioeconomic factors (lower household income), health-related factors (obesity, three or more chronic conditions), and geography (living in the Northern region of the country) were positively associated with reporting a COVID-19 diagnosis. Despite the descriptive and preliminary nature of these findings, results reported here suggest the need for more targeted approaches to enhance personal protection and provide greater viral testing options, especially for older, sicker and more vulnerable adults in Brazil.

Background: Polypharmacy has become an increasingly public health issue as population age and novel drugs are developed. Yet, evidence on low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is still scarce. Objective: This work aims to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy among Brazilians aged 50 and over, and investigate associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the baseline assessment of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative study of persons aged 50 years and older (n=9,412). Univariate and bivariate analyses described the sample. Robust Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and predict probabilities of polypharmacy. Results: Prevalence of polypharmacy was estimated at 13.5% among older adults in Brazil. Important disparities were observed in regard to gender (16.1% among women and 10.5% among men), race (16.0% among whites and 10.1% among blacks) and geographic region (ranging from 5.1% in the North to 18.7% in the South). The multivariate analysis showed that polypharmacy is associated with various sociodemographic/individual factors (age, gender, race, education, region, health status, body mass index) as well as with several variables of healthcare access/utilization (number of visits, same physician, provider’s knowledge of patient’s medications, gate-keeper, and difficulty managing own medication). Overall, the more utilization of health services, the higher the probability of polypharmacy, after adjusting for all other model covariates. Conclusions: Polypharmacy prevalence is relatively low in Brazil, compared to European countries. After controlling for variables of healthcare need and demographic characteristics, there is still substantial residual variance in polypharmacy prevalence. Policies to identify inappropriate prescribing and reduce regional discrepancies are necessary.

ObjectivesLittle is known about sleeping pills consumption among older adults in low- and middle-income countries. This study investigated the prevalence and factors associated with sleeping pills use among Brazilians aged 50 and over.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using baseline data from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative study of persons aged 50 years and older (n = 9412). Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to describe the sample. Robust Poisson regression was employed to estimate prevalence ratios and predict probabilities.Key findingsPrevalence of sleeping pills use among older Brazilians was estimated at 16.8%, with considerable disparities related to gender (22.3% among women and 10.3% among men), race/skin colour (19.7% among whites and 11.9% among blacks) and geographic region (ranging from 5.9% in the North to 20.5% in the South). The multivariate analysis showed associations between sleeping pills consumption and sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race/skin colour, geographic region and income), health status/behaviour characteristics (poor self-rated health status, number of chronic conditions and alcohol consumption) and variables related to healthcare utilisation (number of visits, usual source of care, care coordination, doctor’s awareness of all medication, difficulty in managing own medication and number of medicines).ConclusionsOur work found that sleeping pills consumption is disproportionately prevalent among women, is associated with worse health status and increases with more medical office visits and use of additional medicines. Moreover, the large inexplicable variations in care deserve special attention from policy-makers and clinicians.

International comparative studies constitute a highly valuable contribution to public policy research. Analysing different policy designs offers not only a mean of knowing the phenomenon itself but also gives us insightful clues on how to improve existing practices. Although much of the work carried out in this realm relies on quantitative appraisal of the data contained in international databases or collected from institutional websites, countless topics may simply not be studied using this type of methodological design due to, for instance, the lack of reliable databases, sparse or diffuse sources of information, etc. Here then we discuss the use of the qualitative descriptive approach as a methodological tool to obtain data on how policies are structured. We propose the use of online qualitative surveys with key stakeholders from each relevant national context in order to retrieve the fundamental pieces of information on how a certain public policy is addressed there. Starting from Sandelowski's seminal paper on qualitative descriptive studies, we conduct a theoretical reflection on the current methodological proposition. We argue that a researcher engaged in this endeavour acts like a composite-sketch artist collecting pieces of information from witnesses in order to draw a valid depiction of reality. Furthermore, we discuss the most relevant aspects involving sampling, data collection and data analysis in this context. Overall, this methodological design has a great potential for allowing researchers to expand the international analysis of public policies to topics hitherto little appraised from this perspective.

Importance Missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination during pediatric health care visits are common. Objectives To evaluate the effect of online communication training for clinicians on missed opportunities for HPV vaccination rates overall and at well-child care (WCC) visits and visits for acute or chronic illness (hereafter referred to as acute or chronic visits) and on adolescent HPV vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Participants From December 26, 2018, to July 30, 2019, a longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial allocated practices to communication training vs standard of care in staggered 6-month periods. A total of 48 primary care pediatric practices in 19 states were recruited from the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Participants were clinicians in intervention practices. Outcomes were evaluated for all 11- to 17-year-old adolescents attending 24 intervention practices (188 clinicians) and 24 control practices (177 clinicians). Analyses were as randomized and performed on an intent-to-treat basis, accounting for clustering by practice. Interventions Three sequential online educational modules were developed to help participating clinicians communicate with parents about the HPV vaccine. Weekly text messages were sent to participating clinicians to reinforce learning. Statisticians were blinded to group assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were missed opportunities for HPV vaccination overall and for HPV vaccine initiation and subsequent doses at WCC and acute or chronic visits (visit-level outcome). Secondary outcomes were HPV vaccination rates (person-level outcome). Outcomes were compared during the intervention vs baseline. Results Altogether, 122 of 188 clinicians in intervention practices participated; of these, 120, 119, and 116 clinicians completed training modules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During the intervention period, 29 206 adolescents (14 664 girls [50.2%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 15 888 WCC and 28 123 acute or chronic visits to intervention practices; 33 914 adolescents (17 069 girls [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 17 910 WCC and 35 281 acute or chronic visits to control practices. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities overall by 2.4 percentage points (−2.4%; 95% CI, −3.5% to −1.2%) more than controls. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities for vaccine initiation during WCC visits by 6.8 percentage points (−6.8%; 95% CI, −9.7% to −3.9%) more than controls. The intervention had no effect on missed opportunities for subsequent doses of the HPV vaccine or at acute or chronic visits. Adolescents in intervention practices had a 3.4-percentage point (95% CI, 0.6%-6.2%) greater improvement in HPV vaccine initiation compared with adolescents in control practices. Conclusions and Relevance This scalable, online communication training increased HPV vaccination, particularly HPV vaccine initiation at WCC visits. Results support dissemination of this intervention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03599557

The continent of the Americas has the greatest number of people infected and deaths associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the world. Brazil occupies the 2nd position in numbers of infected cases and deaths, preceded only by the United States. Older adults and those with pre-existing chronic illnesses are more vulnerable to the consequences of the virus. The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has serious consequences for health services. Therefore, an assessment of the pandemic’s effect on the older Brazilian population is urgently needed. The study examines the prevalence of COVID-19 related symptoms, care-seeking, and cancellation of surgery or other scheduled medical care among a nationally representative sample of Brazilians aged 50 and over derived from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil) and a telephone follow-up survey (the ELSI-COVID-19 initiative) between late May and early June 2020. About 10.4% of older adults reported any fever, dry cough or difficulty breathing in the 30 days prior to the interview, with the highest prevalence in the North region (50%). Among individuals with symptoms, only 33.6% sought care. Individuals living in the South or Southeast regions were significantly less likely to seek care for COVID-19 related symptoms. Nearly one in six participants had to cancel scheduled surgery or other medical care; this proportion was higher among women, those with more education, and people with multiple chronic conditions. This paper is among the first to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on health care use in Brazil among older adults. Results highlight the need to adapt health care delivery (such as through telemedicine) to ensure the continuity of care as well as the urgent need for wide dissemination of information to guide the population on disease prevention measures and how to obtain healthcare when needed.

To assess the association between childhood hunger experiences and the prevalence of chronic diseases later in life.A cross-sectional study was conducted using baseline data from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative study of persons aged 50 years and older (n = 9 412). Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to describe the sample, and multivariate logistic regressions to examine the association between childhood hunger and hypertension, diabetes, arthritis and osteoporosis. Adjusted odds ratios and predicted probabilities were calculated.24.7% of Brazilians aged 50 and over experienced hunger during childhood. This harmful exposure was significantly more common among non-white people, individuals with lower educational attainment, lower household income and heavy manual laborers. Regional variation was also observed, as the prevalence of individuals reporting childhood hunger was higher in the North and Northeast regions. The multivariate analysis revealed that older adults who reported having experienced hunger during childhood had 20% higher odds of developing diabetes in adulthood (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02 - 1.41) and 38% higher odds of developing osteoporosis (aOR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.15 - 1.64) than adults who did not experience hunger during childhood, after controlling for covariates.The study showed an association between childhood hunger and two chronic diseases in later life: diabetes and osteoporosis. This work restates that investing in childhood conditions is a cost-effective way to have a healthy society and provides evidence on relationships that deserve further investigation to elucidate underlying mechanisms.Evaluar la asociación entre las experiencias de hambre en la niñez y la prevalencia de enfermedades crónicas en las etapas posteriores de la vida.Se realizó un estudio transversal utilizando como línea de base los datos del Estudio Longitudinal del Envejecimiento en Brasil (ELSI-Brasil), un estudio nacional representativo de personas de 50 años o más (n = 9 412). Se emplearon análisis univariado y bivariado para describir la muestra, y regresión logística multivariada para examinar la asociación entre el hambre en la niñez y la hipertensión, la diabetes, la artritis y la osteoporosis. Se calcularon las razones de posibilidades ajustadas y las probabilidades previstas.El 24,7% de los brasileños de 50 años o más pasó hambre en la niñez. Esta experiencia perjudicial fue considerablemente más común en las personas no blancas, las personas con menor nivel de instrucción, las personas con ingresos familiares bajos y los trabajadores de mano de obra pesada. También se observó una variación regional, puesto que la prevalencia de individuos que expresaron haber pasado hambre en la niñez fue mayor en las regiones Norte y Nordeste. Luego de controlar las covariables, el análisis multifactorial reveló que los adultos mayores que dijeron haber pasado hambre en la niñez tenían una probabilidad 20% mayor de tener diabetes en la edad adulta (aOR = 1,20, IC 95%: 1,02 – 1,41) y 38% mayor de tener osteoporosis (aOR = 1,38, IC 95%: 1,15 – 1,64) que los adultos que no habían pasado hambre en la niñez.El estudio reveló una asociación entre el hambre en la niñez y dos enfermedades crónicas en las etapas posteriores de la vida: la diabetes y la osteoporosis. Este trabajo reafirma que invertir en las condiciones de vida de las personas en la niñez es una manera costoeficaz de tener una sociedad saludable, al tiempo que aporta evidencia acerca de relaciones que merecen investigarse más a fin de esclarecer los mecanismos subyacentes.Avaliar a associação entre a experiência de passar fome na infância e a prevalência posterior de doenças crônicas.Um estudo transversal foi realizado a partir de dados básicos do Estudo Longitudinal da Saúde dos Idosos Brasileiros (ELSI-Brasil), uma pesquisa com representatividade nacional realizada com pessoas de 50 anos ou mais (n = 9.412). Análises univariadas e bivariadas foram usadas para descrever a amostra e a regressão logística multivariada foi aplicada para examinar a associação entre passar fome na infância e hipertensão, diabetes, artrite e osteoporose. Foram calculadas razões de chances (Verificou-se que 24,7% dos brasileiros com 50 anos ou mais passaram fome na infância. Esta exposição prejudicial foi significativamente mais frequente em pessoas não brancas, com nível de instrução menor e renda familiar mais baixa e em trabalhadores braçais. Observou-se também uma variação regional, com uma maior prevalência de pessoas que relataram ter passado fome na infância nas Regiões Norte e Nordeste. Na análise multivariada, nos idosos que informaram ter passado fome na infância, a probabilidade foi 20% maior de ter diabetes na idade adulta (ORaj 1,20; IC 95% 1,02–1,41) e 38% maior de ter osteoporose (ORaj 1,38, IC 95% 1,15–1,64) em comparação aos adultos que não passaram fome na infância, após o controle de covariáveis.O estudo demonstrou associação entre passar fome na infância e duas doenças crônicas na vida adulta: diabetes e osteoporose. Este trabalho reitera que investir na infância é uma maneira custo-efetiva de se criar uma sociedade saudável e fornece evidências sobre relações que devem ser pesquisadas mais a fundo para esclarecer os processos subjacentes.

Background: Active management of existing health technologies (e.g., devices, diagnostic, and/or medical procedures) to ensure the delivery of high value care is increasingly recognized around the world. A number of initiatives have raised awareness of technologies that may be overused, mis-used, or potentially harmful by compiling them into lists of low value care. However, despite the growing number of lists, changes to local healthcare practices remain challenging for many systems. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a process, leveraging existing initiatives and data assets, to produce a list of prioritized low value technologies for health technology reassessment (HTR). Methods: An expert advisory committee comprised of clinical experts and health system decision-makers was convened to determine key process requirements. Once developed, the process was piloted to assess feasibility in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Results: The expert advisory committee identified five required attributes for the process: data-driven, routine and replicable, actionable, stakeholder collaboration, and high return on investment. Guided by these attributes, a 5-step process was developed. First, over 1300 published low value technologies (i.e., from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] “do not do” recommendations, low value technologies in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, and Choosing Wisely “Top 5” lists) were identified. Using appropriate coding systems for BC’s administrative health data (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD]), the low value technologies were queried to examine frequencies and costs of technology use. This information was used to rank potential candidates for reassessment based on high annual budgetary impact. Lastly, clinical experts reviewed the ranked technologies prior to broad dissemination and stakeholder action. Pilot testing of the process in BC resulted in the prioritization of 9 initial candidate technologies for reassessment. Conclusions: This is the first account of a systematic approach to move a collective body of low value technology recommendations into action in a healthcare setting. This work demonstrates the feasibility and strength of using administrative data to identify and prioritize low value technologies for HTR at a population-level.

Rules and principles for guiding decision-making in the health care sector have been debated for decades. Here, we present a critical appraisal of the two most important paradigms in this respect: welfarism and extra-welfarism. While the former deals with the maximization of the overall sum of individual utilities as its primary outcome, the latter has been focusing on the maximization of the overall health status. We argue that welfarism has three main problems: (1) its central idea of overall sum of individual utilities does not capture societal values decisively relevant in the context of health; (2) the use of the Potential Pareto Improvement brings an unresolvable separation between efficiency and equity; and (3) individual utility may not be a good measure in the health sector, given that individuals might value things that diminish their overall health. In turn, the extra-welfarist approach is criticized regarding four main limitations: (1) the advocated expansion of the evaluative space, moving from utility to health, may have represented in reality a narrowing of it; (2) it operates using non-explicit considerations of equity; (3) it still holds the issue of “inability to desire” of unprivileged people being considered the best judges of weighing the criteria used to building the health measures; and (4) there is controversial empirical evidence about society members’ values that support its assumptions. Overall, both paradigms show significant weaknesses, but the debate has still been within the realm of welfare economics, and even the new approaches to resource allocation in health care systems appear to be unable to escape from these boundaries. Resumo: Há décadas se discutem as regras e os princípios para a tomada de decisões no setor de saúde. O artigo apresenta uma avaliação crítica dos dois paradigmas mais importantes nessa área: welfarism e extra-welfarism. O primeiro lida com a maximização da soma total das utilidades individuais como desfecho primário, enquanto o segundo concentra-se na maximização do estado geral de saúde. Argumentamos que o welfarism apresenta três problemas principais: (1) a ideia central da soma total das utilidades individuais não capta os valores da sociedade que são decisivos no contexto da saúde; (2) o uso da Potencial Melhoria de Pareto introduz uma separação irresolvível entre eficiência e equidade e (3) a utilidade individual pode não ser uma medida adequada no setor da saúde, uma vez que os indivíduos podem valorizar coisas que diminuem seu estado geral de saúde. Enquanto isso, os críticos apontam quatro limitações principais na abordagem extra-welfarist: (1) a proposta de expansão do espaço avaliativo, passando da utilidade para a saúde, na realidade pode redundar no estreitamento desse mesmo espaço; (2) a abordagem opera com considerações não explícitas de equidade; (3) ainda mantém a questão da “incapacidade de desejar” das pessoas de baixa renda que são consideradas os melhores avaliadores dos critérios utilizados para construir as medidas de saúde e (4) há controvérsias em torno das evidências empíricas sobre os valores dos membros da sociedade que sustentam as premissas. No geral, ambos os paradigmas demonstram fraquezas significativas, mas o debate continua dentro do campo da economia do bem-estar social, e mesmo as novas abordagens à alocação de recursos nos sistemas de saúde parecem ser incapazes de fugir desses limites. Resumen: Las normas y los principios para guiar la toma de decisiones en el sector de la salud se han debatido durante décadas. Presentamos una valoración crítica de los dos paradigmas más importantes a este respecto: el welfarism y el extra-welfarism. Mientras que el primero se ocupa de la maximización de la suma global de las utilidades individuales como su resultado primario, este último se ha centrado en la maximización del estado general de salud. Argumentamos que el welfarism tiene tres problemas principales: (1) su idea central de la suma global de las utilidades individuales no captura los valores societales decisivamente relevantes en el contexto de la salud; (2) el uso de la Mejora Potencial de Pareto trae una separación insoluble entre la eficiencia y la equidad; y (3) la utilidad individual puede no ser una buena medida en el sector de la salud, dado que las personas pueden valorar cosas que disminuyen su salud general. A su vez, el enfoque extra-welfarista es criticado con respecto a cuatro limitaciones principales: (1) la expansión del espacio evaluativo propugnada, pasando de la utilidad a la salud, puede haber representado en la realidad un estrechamiento de la misma; (2) opera con consideraciones no explícitas de equidad; (3) todavía sostiene la cuestión de la “inhabilidad de deseo” de las personas no privilegiadas que se consideran los mejores jueces de pesar los criterios usados para construir las medidas de la salud; y (4) hay evidencia empírica polémica sobre los valores de los miembros de la sociedad que apoyan sus suposiciones. En general, ambos paradigmas muestran debilidades significativas, pero el debate aún se encuentra dentro del ámbito de la economía del bienestar, e incluso los nuevos enfoques para la asignación de recursos en los sistemas de atención de salud parecen ser incapaces de escapar de estos límites.