Nature and Composition of Earnings Reported by Health Economists and Related Professionals: Gender, Education, and job Characteristics Matter.

Background: Despite the fast growth of the workforce comprising health economics (HE), outcomes research (OR), and market access (MA) professionals, little is known about their earnings determination. Only three studies have examined their earnings and none has considered the number of hours worked, traditionally a critical component of income determination models. Objectives: (i) Estimate an indicator of annual earnings of HE/OR/MA professionals, comparing male versus female and U.S. versus non-U.S. earnings levels, and (ii) assess the magnitude of the effect of selected human-capital and job-related covariates on their annual earnings determination. Methods: The study used 2019 self-reported survey data from a sample of 304 HE/OR/MA professionals registered in the HealthEconomics.com global subscriber list. A two-way classification model with multiple replications was used to identify and test earnings variations of HE/OR/MA professionals across genders and locations. An earnings determination function using ordinary least squares was used to identify disparities in response to covariates including average workweek, human-capital stock, and job-related variables by gender and location. Results: Substantial earning disparities were observed between HE/OR/MA professionals living in the U.S. and those living in other countries. Non-U.S. respondents exhibited earnings gaps of 44.7% in wages/salaries and 46.8% in total earnings relative to their U.S. counterparts with greater gaps for women than men. The female earnings gap outside the U.S. was considerably greater than in the U.S. Holding a graduate degree; working in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology firm; age, a proxy for experience; and working remotely impacted earnings differentials across different subgroups. Conclusions: The findings of this paper shed light into the nature and composition of earnings of HE/OR/MA professionals across genders and locations. Exploring the dynamics of earning disparities by gender and location has increased in relevance given the rapidly-changing and uncertain job market environment driven by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disparities in the Wage-and-Salary Earnings, Determinants, and Distribution of Health Economics, Outcomes Research, and Market Access Professionals: An Exploratory Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to estimate the wage-and-salary earnings of a sample of health economics, outcomes research, and market access (HE/OR/MA) professionals; compare male versus female and US versus non-US earnings; assess the magnitude of the effect of several human-capital and job-related covariates on the determination of earnings; and examine inequality in the distribution of earnings. METHODS: The study used self-reported survey data collected in 2017 from a subset of HE/OR/MA professionals in the HealthEconomics.com global subscriber list. HE/OR/MA professionals in this subset completed a questionnaire. The sample consisted of 372 participants who reported their wage-and-salary earnings and other indicators. The sample was not necessarily representative of the global HE/OR/MA community. The study methods included a two-way classification model with multiple replications, an ordinary least-squares model, and three inequality indicators. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The results suggested substantial disparities between the wage-and-salary earnings of respondents living in the USA and those living in other countries; mild gender disparities in earnings; greater inequality outside the USA than within the USA; and, within each location, more unequal distribution of men's earnings than that of women's earnings. CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings may not be extrapolated to the worldwide population of HE/OR/MA professionals, they provide a point of comparison with earlier studies and offer insights into the mechanics of one of the most innovative and fastest growing health-sector workforce segments in developed as well as emerging countries.

Predictors of Annual Base Salary for Health Economics, Outcomes Research, and Market Access Professionals in the Biopharmaceutical Industry.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of salary data for health economics, outcomes research, and market access professionals in biopharmaceutical space plays an important role in hiring talent, benchmarking remuneration, and evaluating income discrepancies. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify predictors of annual base salary (ABS) for health economics, outcomes research, and market access professionals who participated in the 2017 Global Salary Survey by HealthEconomics.Com and (b) evaluate salary-related gender disparity among survey respondents. METHODS: 501 professionals from the HealthEconomics.Com global subscriber list participated in a survey that assessed salary, bonus, benefits, and job satisfaction in June 2017. Two multivariable regression models identified significant predictors of ABS for U.S. and non-U.S. regions separately. Analysis of variance determined interaction effects between gender, organizational size, job title, and people management responsibilities separately. RESULTS: Of the 501 respondents, 385 were included in the analysis because they reported ABS. Median ABS for male (n = 117) and female (n = 111) U.S.-based respondents was $172,500 and $162,500, respectively. For male (n = 75) and female (n = 65) non-U.S.-based respondents, the median was identical at $92,500. Mean (SD) ABS between male ($180,534 [$77,755]) and female ($165,113 [$64,604]; t [226] = 1.62; P = 0.106) U.S. respondents was not significantly different. Mean (SD) ABS for male ($110,900 [$65,898]) and female ($98,039 [$48,639]; t [138] = 1.30; P = 0.196) non-U.S. respondents was not significantly different, as well. Multivariable regression models for U.S. and non-U.S. respondents accounted for 62.7% and 63.9% of variance in ABS (P < 0.001), respectively. In both models, significantly higher salaries were associated with professionals aged > 40 years; biopharmaceutical employment; having a PhD, PharmD, or MD; and having a job title of president or director (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for covariates, gender was not statistically significantly associated with ABS. Age, organization type, terminal degree, and job title were significant predictors of higher salaries inside and outside of the United States. Additional research should be conducted to increase generalizability of results, which were based on a convenience sample. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this research. Shah and Peeples are employed by HealthEconomics.Com, which administered the survey used in this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest.

A Probe into the Wages and Salaries of Health Economics, Outcomes Research, and Market Access Professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the central tendency and spread of health economics, outcomes research, and market access (HE/OR/MA) professionals' wage-and-salary earnings; compare male versus female and US versus non-US earnings levels; and examine inequality in their distribution. METHODS: Self-reported survey data were collected in 2015 from HE/OR/MA professionals in the HealthEconomics.com global subscriber list. The study design consisted of a two-way classification model with multiple replications and three inequality indicators. HE/OR/MA professionals from the HealthEconomics.com global subscriber list completed a questionnaire. The sample consisted of 403 participants. RESULTS: Within each location, men earned higher wages and salaries than women, and within each gender, HE/OR/MA professionals living in the USA earned higher wages and salaries than those living outside the USA. Evidence of a gap was suggested by the presence of gender and location disparities in earnings determinants. Results also suggested the presence of moderate inequality that was similar for both genders and greater for non-US than US residents. CONCLUSIONS: This study shed light into the labor market structure of HE/OR/MA professionals and may be conducive to more rational and efficient workforce management policies.

Impact of vision loss on costs and outcomes in medicare beneficiaries with glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of vision loss severity on costs and health outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with glaucoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using Medicare claims. Patients were stratified into 4 categories: no vision loss, moderate vision loss, severe vision loss, and blindness. Outcomes of interest were mean annual medical costs by category, component costs, and frequency of depression, falls and/or accidents, injury, femur fracture, and nursing home placement. RESULTS: Multivariate regression analysis showed that patients with any degree of vision loss had 46.7% higher total costs compared with patients without vision loss. Mean total and component costs increased with onset and severity ($8157 for no vision loss to $18,670 for blindness). Patients with vision loss were significantly more likely to be placed in a nursing home (odds ratio = 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.31), develop depression (odds ratio = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.73), fracture a femur (odds ratio = 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.83), or experience a fall or accident (odds ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-1.68) vs patients without vision loss. CONCLUSIONS: Vision loss in glaucoma is costly, and costs increase with severity. There is significantly increased risk of nursing home admission, depression, falls and/or accidents, injury, or femur fracture with vision loss compared with no vision loss.

History of neuroprotection and rationale as a therapy for glaucoma.

Neuroprotection is any therapy that prevents, retards, or reverses apoptosis-associated neuronal cell death resulting from primary neuronal lesions. Although more than 500 products have been investigated for neuroprotective effects, there has been a low rate of success in human trials. Reasons include failure of the animal model to simulate human disease, human disease variability, brain size and development differences, variations in the ratio of axonal to neuronal damage, and lack of efficacy of the compound under study. Other reasons include narrow drug therapeutic index, drug molecular size, the small treatment window after cellular injury, multiple comorbidities of test subjects causing recruitment and statistical challenges, and insufficiently valid and reliable end points. Glaucoma is a neurodegenerative disease for which the neuropathic pathology has been studied since 1972. There have been recent significant advances in understanding the mechanisms for death of retinal neurons, and numerous agents are under development. Memantine, currently approved for Alzheimer's disease and in phase 3 trials for glaucoma progression, is one of the most studied neuroprotectants in glaucoma. Therapies that prevent death of the retinal ganglion cell (neuroprotection), its axon (axoprotection), or both, theoretically should be useful in treating glaucoma.

Current management of glaucoma and the need for complete therapy.

Glaucoma is a long-term ocular neuropathy defined by optic disc or retinal nerve fiber structural abnormalities and visual field abnormality. Primary open-angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. Currently available treatments, initiated in a stepwise process, focus on intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, and initially include topical drug therapy (single then multidrug combinations), followed by laser then surgical treatment. Topical prostaglandin analogues or beta-adrenergic receptor blockers are first used, followed by alpha-agonists or topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and infrequently, cholinergic agonists and oral therapy. Limitations to existing topical IOP-reducing medications include continued disease progression in glaucoma patients with normal IOP, treatment failure, and low rates of compliance and persistence. Therapeutic agents under investigation include neuroprotectants, which target the disease process manifested by death of retinal ganglion cells, axonal loss, and irreversible loss of vision. Neuroprotectants may be used alone or in combination with IOPreducing therapy (a treatment strategy called complete therapy). Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor blocker currently approved for dementia, is the neuroprotectant farthest along in the process seeking regulatory approval for glaucoma treatment and has a favorable safety profile because of its selective mechanism of action. Several other neuroprotectants are in early stage investigation. Complete therapy provides hope for improved outcomes by reducing the significant morbidity and economic consequences that occur as a result of neurodegeneration and disease progression.

Disease progression and the need for neuroprotection in glaucoma management.

Glaucoma, the second leading cause of worldwide blindness, is a progressive optic neuropathy characterized by a loss of retinal ganglion cells and their axons beyond typical age-related baseline loss. Diagnosis is defined by optic disc and visual field changes, and the primary goal of glaucoma treatment is to preserve vision. Proven existing therapies (ie, pharmacotherapy, laser, and surgical) focus on reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP), although elevated IOP is no longer a diagnostic feature of glaucoma. New neuroprotectant drugs are being investigated, with the goal of reducing retinal ganglion cell loss, either prophylactically or after the insult has occurred. Various treatment strategies are being evaluated, and include a neuroprotectant only, or a complete therapy approach comprised of both a neuroprotectant supplemented by an IOP-lowering therapy. Dually targeted complete therapy may directly preserve the optic nerve, decrease the risk factors that cause glaucoma damage, and reduce glaucoma-related morbidities. Neuroprotectant therapy outcomes should include functional and structural effects of disease progression and neuroprotectant therapies, as well as patient functioning and economic impact.