The impact of policy design on payment concentration in Ad-hoc disaster Relief: Lessons from the Market Facilitation and Coronavirus food Assistance programs.

This study examines the distributional implications of two recent ad-hoc disaster aid programs, the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Payment (MFP) programs that have distinctly different program designs, and the federal crop insurance program. Farm-level data are used to estimate the relationship between farm size, measured by crop sales, and the distribution of program benefits. Results indicate payments are more concentrated on larger farms that receive higher per acre payments under the 2018 MFP and federal crop insurance programs. Under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, with a design similar to the 2018 MFP, payments are also more heavily concentrated on larger farms.

The impact of rural health care accessibility on cancer-related behaviors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This research seeks to identify the relationship between economic factors related to the ability to receive and pay for health services and adverse cancer outcomes, as well as preventative screening and behavioral factors that influence the risk of cancer. We focus on the Northern High Plains region, where we are able to compare regions with extremely low access to health services with those with relatively high levels of access. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify health disparities in rural communities, particularly among Native American populations, and, thereby, begin to determine the most effective means by which to deliver health services to areas where geography, economics, and culture might prevent traditional models of health delivery from providing sufficient incentives for the prevention of adverse cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: The Health Care Accessibility Index (HCAI) is computed through the use of principal component analysis and includes economic variables as well as variables concerning institutional and geographic access to health care. Index values are then regressed onto cancer outcomes, cancer-prevention outcomes, and cancer-related risk, using weighted least squares and quantile regressions. RESULTS: Counties with relatively poor access to health care (low HCAI) also have statistically (1) lower breast cancer screening rates, (2) higher smoking prevalence, (3) higher obesity prevalence, and (4) higher cancer-related mortality rates. Breast cancer screening is found to be especially sensitive to areas of low health accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical results provide support for policy efforts to increase the accessibility of health care services that are targeted to areas with low mammography screening rates, high obesity rates, high smoking prevalence, as well as areas near Native American reservation territories.

Combination aspirin and/or calcium chemoprevention with colonoscopy in colorectal cancer prevention: cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and cohort studies have shown that low-dose aspirin and calcium are effective low-risk strategies for primary prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). We compared the cost-effectiveness of aspirin and calcium chemoprevention used with colonoscopy for primary prevention of CRCs. METHODS: Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations for a population of 100,000 persons, with a colonoscopy compliance rate of 50%, were used for the analysis. If adenomas were detected, colonoscopy was repeated every 4 years until no adenomas were evident. Data sources included adenoma transition rates, initial adenoma and CRC incidences, and treatment complication rates from existing literature. Age-adjusted U.S. standard population mortality rates were used and costs were from Medicare reimbursement data. The target population was U.S. adults, undergoing CRC screening from ages 50 to 75 years. RESULTS: Outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), life-years saved (LYS), and cancer-free years saved (CFYS). The ICER per LYS for colonoscopy alone dominated compared with no screening. Compared with colonoscopy alone, colonoscopies with aspirin (ICER = $12,950/LYS) or calcium (ICER = $13,041/LYS) were the next most cost-effective strategies. ICERs per CFYS were $3,061 and $2,317 for aspirin and calcium, respectively, when added to colonoscopy. Sensitivity analyses indicated that initial prevalence of adenomas was a main determinant of prevention cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Low-dose aspirin or calcium supplementation may be beneficial when added to colonoscopy, for optimum CRC prevention, at small incremental costs. IMPACT: Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that aspirin and calcium in combination with colonoscopies are cost-effective for CRC prevention in average-risk populations.

The chronic kidney disease model: a general purpose model of disease progression and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the focus of recent national policy efforts; however, decision makers must account for multiple therapeutic options, comorbidities and complications. The objective of the Chronic Kidney Disease model is to provide guidance to decision makers. We describe this model and give an example of how it can inform clinical and policy decisions. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulation of CKD natural history and treatment. Health states include myocardial infarction, stroke with and without disability, congestive heart failure, CKD stages 1-5, bone disease, dialysis, transplant and death. Each cycle is 1 month. Projections account for race, age, gender, diabetes, proteinuria, hypertension, cardiac disease, and CKD stage. Treatment strategies include hypertension control, diabetes control, use of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, nephrology specialty care, CKD screening, and a combination of these. The model architecture is flexible permitting updates as new data become available. The primary outcome is quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include health state events and CKD progression rate. RESULTS: The model was validated for GFR change/year -3.0 ± 1.9 vs. -1.7 ± 3.4 (in the AASK trial), and annual myocardial infarction and mortality rates 3.6 ± 0.9% and 1.6 ± 0.5% vs. 4.4% and 1.6% in the Go study. To illustrate the model's utility we estimated lifetime impact of a hypothetical treatment for primary prevention of vascular disease. As vascular risk declined, QALY improved but risk of dialysis increased. At baseline, 20% and 60% reduction: QALYs = 17.6, 18.2, and 19.0 and dialysis = 7.7%, 8.1%, and 10.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD Model is a valid, general purpose model intended as a resource to inform clinical and policy decisions improving CKD care. Its value as a tool is illustrated in our example which projects a relationship between decreasing cardiac disease and increasing ESRD.