Improvements
in cardiovascular care for elderly save billions in health care costs
Harvard
University
Health care spending among the Medicare population age 65 and older has slowed dramatically since 2005, and as much as half of that reduction can be attributed to reduced spending on cardiovascular disease, a new Harvard study has found.
Led
by David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics, a team of
researchers showed that by 2012, those reductions saved the average person
nearly $3,000 a year. Across the entire elderly population, those savings add
up to a whopping $120 billion, with about half of those savings coming from
Medicare. The study is described in a February 4 paper published in Health
Affairs.
"This is the first time, to my knowledge, anyone has shown that some forms of medical care can save money," Cutler said. "You see that claim all the time -- but in terms of widespread preventive care saving money...we've never had that example before."
And
though it might make intuitive sense -- if you can prevent people from falling
ill, they'll spend less on health care -- the accepted wisdom among economists
was exactly the opposite.
"The
received wisdom has been that prevention doesn't save money, it only saves
lives," Cutler said. "Of course, that's something we want to do, but
the argument was that you shouldn't expect your prevention to save you
money."
And
part of the reason why, he said, can be boiled down to simple numbers.
Prevention
programs must include huge numbers of people to be effective, Cutler said,
making them expensive, and there is no guarantee they will actually work. As an
example, he pointed toward smoking cessation.
"If
you stop smoking and then you don't have a heart attack, you save the money
you'd spend on treating the heart attack," he said.
"But the argument has been that, because very few people will manage to stop smoking, you have to intervene with a lot of people, so the number you need to treat is large. And then the second reason is that maybe you don't die of a heart attack, but you're going to die of something, and that will still be expensive...so it's largely a wash."
"But the argument has been that, because very few people will manage to stop smoking, you have to intervene with a lot of people, so the number you need to treat is large. And then the second reason is that maybe you don't die of a heart attack, but you're going to die of something, and that will still be expensive...so it's largely a wash."
Cutler's
study, however, upends those arguments, showing that even relatively modest
investments in preventative care can produce significant savings.
"When
we looked at the trend in per capita spending by the elderly, in 2005 is where
we began to see the increases slowing," Cutler said. "And a large
part of that is due to cardiovascular health, because what used to disable
people were heart disease and strokes, and those have declined immensely...so
about half of the decline we saw was related to cardiovascular issues."
And
by 2012, Cutler said, the slowdown in health care spending was beginning to add
up.
"It
was almost $2,900 a year, per person -- that's a lot of money," he said.
"Toward the end of Obama's first term, you may recall that there was a great deal of talk about debt reduction, but when a deal didn't get made the issue just faded away. One reason why is because Medicare costs came in less rapidly than we thought...and this study shows one reason why."
"Toward the end of Obama's first term, you may recall that there was a great deal of talk about debt reduction, but when a deal didn't get made the issue just faded away. One reason why is because Medicare costs came in less rapidly than we thought...and this study shows one reason why."
Understanding
exactly what was behind the slowing in health care spending, however, was
anything but easy.
"There
were three main technical challenges in this paper," Cutler said.
"The hardest one, where we spent the most time, was in trying to decompose
the spending by disease. That turns out to be very difficult, because if
someone goes to the doctor for a cardiovascular condition, but they also have a
history of mental illness, how do you separate the spending on those
items?"
The
solution, Cutler said, came when he and colleagues compared a random sampling
of billing records of people with similar diagnoses.
"We
did an analysis of everyone who has X, we compared them to people who look just
like them, but they don't have X," Cutler said. "And then we can ask
how much more did people with X spend?"
The
next challenge, Cutler said, came in teasing apart how much of the spending
slowdown was due to fewer cases of cardiovascular disease and how much was due
to each case simply costing less, and what researchers found was both that
there were fewer first-time illnesses and fewer cases where a patient had a
problem, like a heart attack, and later experienced additional problems.
Finally,
Cutler said, the team faced the challenge of gauging the impact of medications
on spending.
To
do it, he said, they created a combined measure of how various drugs lower the
risk for cardiovascular disease. When they compared the predicted drop in
disease to the actual drop, they found about half of the drop could be
attributed to medications.
While
the study found a significant cost savings came from improvements in
cardiovascular health, Cutler said there is still room for more improvement.
"Even
now, only half the people with high cholesterol have their cholesterol brought
down to guideline levels," he said. "And it's the same for people
with high blood pressure, so there's still a way to go."
Going
forward, Cutler hopes to expand the study to include those who are near-elderly
in an effort to understand how earlier intervention can reduce health care
spending.
"There's
no reason to think this would be limited to the elderly," he said.
"And in fact, getting people who are 58 now to take medications could save
Medicare a lot of money, because they will be healthier when they enter that
population."
Ultimately,
Cutler said, the study provides important evidence that preventive care can not
only help people live healthier lives for longer, but can also have a positive
impact on their pocketbooks.
"For
the first time, we can see savings from it, which is very gratifying, because
very often when you think about saving money in medical care, it brings up
unpleasant topics, like who should be rationed from chemotherapy or which
services are not necessary," he said.
"We've always known in principle that if people are healthy you wouldn't need to spend money on them...but no one ever had a way to show it. That's what makes me particularly excited about this."
"We've always known in principle that if people are healthy you wouldn't need to spend money on them...but no one ever had a way to show it. That's what makes me particularly excited about this."
This
research was supported with funding from the National Institute on Aging.