JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives


HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives


HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Home

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Home

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK  March 2007

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK March 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FW: QALYs produced by NHS

From:

Mike Hughes <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:16:18 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (224 lines)

Two things strike me on this.

Firstly there is a real and important lay interest in the outcomes of "extra" investment substantially over and above infltion for wages and equipment: and perhaps a not ungrounded and recurrent concern - from Nye Bevan onwards -about diminishing returns from expanded NHS investment.

The second is the time scale issue. I'm a public health practitioner not a health economist, but would point out that the health outcomes being measured in the the last three rolling years represent, in some part, the fruits of decades of health eductation and promotion, some NHS funded, social, political and economic change - some of which such as much tobacco control lobbying was NHS funded. All of which impact on QUALYs, and the last three years of outcomes.  

One of the problems and disadvantages of a politically directed  national health service is its problem in thinking and acting for outcomes beyond terms of office at best, and financial years at worst. Insurance-led programmes can think and act in acturial timeframes. It would be great if health economics could support and encourage politicians to be as imaginative as insurance salesfolk.

Mike Hughes

> 
> From: John Appleby <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2007/03/27 Tue PM 02:22:45 BST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FW: QALYs produced by NHS
> 
> Richard
>  
> well, i still maintain it's not a silly question! first, as i said, while an implication of the question is the 'NHS vs no NHS' issue, that isn't what I was interested in. And second, wrt the public, in fact I think they are actually interested not in what the extra money has produced in health terms (how ever measured) but what the total has produced...and not because they are interested in what health would be without an NHS, but because they want to know what the NHS has produced with its whole budget - particularly as it has grown substantially over the last few years. They do not necessarily assume that the total last year was spent to maximum effect and that therefore they should only be interested in the additional amount this year...
>  
> re the york work, what PCTs spend in one year matches what trusts have to pay in terms of producing their output. The fact that some input costs increased from one year to the next therefore means that the spend figures york used in their calculations have these higher costs (ie 'waste' according to some) built into the single year's data they used, no? The total wage bill in any one year may be fixed, but the total for that year is the result of, amongst other things, higher pay.
>  
> I agree about the problems with timing between PCT spend and the population health effects.
>  
> OK, back to some work!
>  
> John
>  
> John Appleby
> Chief Economist
> King's Fund
> 11-13 Cavendish Square
> London W1G 0AN
>  
> Visiting Professor, City University
>  
> T:  0207 307 2540
> M: 07831 638774
> F: 0207 307 2807
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Richard Cookson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 27 March 2007 12:13
> To: John Appleby
> Subject: RE: QALYs produced by NHS
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you can argue that re: 2, for 2 reasons, though it merits further thought.  First, the York work looks at cross-sectional variation in spending between PCTs for a single year (2004-5).  It does not look at change over time between 2003 and 2004.  So it doesn't account for waste on general wage and price inflation that affects _all_ PCTs equally - it takes a fixed set of wages and prices for a given year and looks at variations in spend between PCTs represent variations in real resource use.  Second, the York work uses death rates averaged over a three year period 2002-5.  These life year gains thus in fact relate to spending done in the "lean" years of the late 1990s and early 2000s, though not measured in the study - they have to assume that PCTs are some sort of equilibrium, though they don't fully tease out the implications of this assumption e.g. does this mean that if they spend x pounds more now then they must have spent x pounds more then, or x% more, or what?
>  
> I agree that what the NHS has gained from the extra spending 2003 to 2004 is a sensible question.  But I maintain that what the NHS has gained from zero spending to current spending is a silly question!
>  
> R
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: This is a closed list of the UK Health Economists' Study Group (HESG) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Appleby
> 	Sent: 27 March 2007 11:53
> 	To: [log in to unmask]
> 	Subject: Re: QALYs produced by NHS
> 	
> 	
> 	Thanks Richard!
> 	 
> 	1. Yes, of course (to the curve)....but where is the NHS on that curve now?
> 	2. The York cost per LY estimates use 2004/5 data (as far as i remember) and would i guess subsume the fact that some NHS money was 'wasted'. ie without waste, then the cost per LY would be lower.
> 	3. I didn't have any counterfactual in mind. What i was interested in was any attempt anyone had made to estimate the change in health of the population as a result of change in investment in the NHS as part of work i'm doing with derek wanless looking back at the assumptions he made about productivity change in the NHS.
> 	 
> 	As to the silliness of the question, well, i'm not sure you're right. From the public's point of view, the question 'where's the money gone?' really deserves an attempt at an answer which goes beyond simply saying 'into doctor's pockets and a bit more activity'.
> 	 
> 	john
> 	 
> 	John Appleby
> 	Chief Economist
> 	King's Fund
> 	11-13 Cavendish Square
> 	London W1G 0AN
> 	 
> 	Visiting Professor, City University
> 	 
> 	T:  0207 307 2540
> 	M: 07831 638774
> 	F: 0207 307 2807
> 	 
> 	 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Richard Cookson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> 	Sent: 27 March 2007 11:32
> 	To: John Appleby; [log in to unmask]
> 	Subject: RE: QALYs produced by NHS
> 	
> 	
> 	I suspect the Maynard-Jefferson estimate of 42 multipled by 3.14 is more accurate ("ask a silly question!")... but I have good news, bad news and even worse new for you John.
> 	 
> 	Good news: every health production function that I have ever seen is curvy.  If we assume diminishing marginal returns, then these total QALY gain estimates are lower bounds - since the first billion pounds spent generates even more QALYs than the last billion.
> 	 
> 	Bad news: as you have shown, some of the extra spending was frittered away on wage and price inflation - i.e. money gains for doctors and shareholders, rather than QALY gains for patients.
> 	 
> 	Even worse news:  if we didn't have an NHS, where would be be?  The USA!  Which spends even more on health care so presumably gains even more QALYs.  So in fact, compared to the realistic alternative, the NHS is robbbing us of QALYs!  Your comparator (of zero health care spending) is impossible, hence your question is silly.
> 	 
> 	R
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: This is a closed list of the UK Health Economists' Study Group (HESG) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Appleby
> 		Sent: 27 March 2007 10:46
> 		To: [log in to unmask]
> 		Subject: Re: QALYs produced by NHS
> 		
> 		
> 		Good news, QALY fans, the answer (thanks to Alastair Fischer at NICE) to the question does not take NICE's £20k-£30k per QALY range, but uses the recent calculations by Pete Smith and colleagues at York of a cost per life year gained for cancer and circulatory diseasea (based on the DH national Programme Budget data (see http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp24.pdf.))
> 		 
> 		Using this PCT spend data and variations in population health measures (mortaility), they suggest a cost per life year of around £13k for cancer spending and around £8k for circulatory disease spending. Total English NHS cancer spend in 2004/5 was around £3.7 bn, so LYs produced = 284,000. Circulatory spending was £6 bn, so LYs produced = 750,000.
> 		 
> 		For the whole of the UK NHS spend in 2004/5 of £82.5 bn, assuming that cost per LY for all activities is somewhere between a pretty low number and a fairly high number - let's say, £13,000 on average....the NHS produces around 6.4 million LYs per year. And lastly, assuming that these LYs are not all of perfect quality (say, 0.9), then, quality adjusted life years produced by the UK NHS in one year will be of the order of...5.8 million (about 1.2 months per head of population).
> 		 
> 		And in terms of what we got for the extra £7.8 bn spent on the UK NHS between 2003/4 and 2004/5, this suggests around 540,000 QALYs.
> 		 
> 		So, the next question is: what proportion of this increase in QALYs could be attributable to improvements in the quality as opposed to the volume of health care?
> 		 
> 		john
> 		 
> 		 
> 		 
> 		 
> 		 
> 		John Appleby
> 		Chief Economist
> 		King's Fund
> 		11-13 Cavendish Square
> 		London W1G 0AN
> 		 
> 		Visiting Professor, City University
> 		 
> 		T:  0207 307 2540
> 		M: 07831 638774
> 		F: 0207 307 2807
> 		 
> 		 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 		From: This is a closed list of the UK Health Economists' Study Group (HESG) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fordham Richard Dr (MED)
> 		Sent: 27 March 2007 08:22
> 		To: [log in to unmask]
> 		Subject: Re: QALYs produced by NHS
> 		
> 		
> 		Gentleman gentleman, 
> 		 
> 		If the NHS is spending £60bn of taxpayers money presumably in the cause of improving or saving lives then then assuming it does this 'efficiently' at the marginal rate of transformation of 30,000/QALY then it must be producing about 200,000 pa. Of course, 42 might be the actual answer..
> 		 
> 		Regards,
> 		 
> 		Ric
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 			From: This is a closed list of the UK Health Economists' Study Group (HESG) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> 			Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:34 AM
> 			To: [log in to unmask]
> 			Subject: Re: QALYs produced by NHS
> 			
> 			
> 			You have all forgotten to divide it by 3.14........scandalous!
> 			 
> 			Dr Tom Jefferson
> 			Via Adige 28a
> 			00061 Anguillara Sabazia
> 			(Roma)
> 			Italy
> 			
> 			www.attentiallebufale.it
> 			Tel/Fax ++39 06 999 00 989
> 			Mobile ++39 32 92025051
> 			Email [log in to unmask]
> 			 
> 			 
> 			-----Original Message-----
> 			From: [log in to unmask]
> 			To: [log in to unmask]
> 			Sent: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 7.07PM
> 			Subject: Re: QALYs produced by NHS
> 			
> 			
> 			Plus or minus?
> 			
> 			>>> Alan Maynard <[log in to unmask] <javascript:parent.ComposeTo("akm3%40YORK.AC.UK", "");> > 03/26/07 5:12 PM >>>
> 			Forty two?
> 			
> 			
> 			
> 			On Mar 26 2007, John Appleby wrote:
> 			
> 			>Any even half-evidenced guess as to the total number of QALYs the NHS
> 			>produces each year?
> 			> 
> 			>John Appleby
> 			>Chief Economist
> 			>King's Fund
> 			>11-13 Cavendish Square
> 			>London W1G 0AN
> 			> 
> 			>Visiting Professor, City University
> 			> 
> 			>T:  0207 307 2540
> 			>M: 07831 638774
> 			>F: 0207 307 2807
> 			> 
> 			> 
> 			>
> 			
> 
> 
> 


-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager