- Useful Links
- Career Center
For those who were unable to join us in Boston for the 2017 Congress, we did, for the first time, live stream each plenary session as well as several other sessions! A schedule of the sessions that were live streamed on each day are listed below.
The recording for each live stream below will be made available on the iHEA website shortly!
The Affordable Care Act Past, Present and Future: Tense
Session 1: ACA Past and Present
Chair: Leemore Dafny (Harvard Business School and NBER)
Panelists: Jonathan Gruber (MIT, Department of Economics and NBER), Emily Gee (Center for American Progress), David Cutler (Harvard University, Department of Economics and NBER)
Session 2: ACA Future: Tense
Chair: Randy Ellis (Boston University, Department of Economics)
Panelists: John Goodman (Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research), Yevgeniy Feyman (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research), Benjamin Sommers (Harvard T.H. School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School)
Saturday, July 8, 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm
The introduction of competition and choice in health care markets is a popular reform model in health care systems which have historically been dominated by public finance and provision, and heavily regulated. The talk will examine the impact of various reforms to introduce market-based incentives with a focus on lessons from the UK and European countries.
Sunday, July 9, 8:00 am – 9:30 am
Sunday, July 9, 10:00 am – 11:30 am
In the last 20 years, a number of countries have attempted reforms to the way health care providers are paid, in order to tie payment to value or quality, rather than merely to volume. Some reforms have been experiments or had a limited scope, such as initiatives taken by various private US insurers. Other reforms have been applied on a larger scale, such as the British Quality Outcomes Framework or Australia’s Practice Incentives Program, both of which targeted general practitioners. Several recent reviews concluded that many pay-for-performance reforms fell short of expectations. More recently, policymakers in various countries have sought to broaden the focus from rewarding specific performance measures toward considering the overall value of care, in purchasing decisions made by health care payers. In addition to pay-for-performance, this broader approach includes innovations such as bundled payment and (in the US) accountable care organizations.
There is an important role for economic theory and evidence in evaluating the performance of value-based reforms. Simple designs often ignore unintended effects that are readily predictable from economic theory, such as providers’ ability to shift effort away from unrewarded outcomes, or to select patients who will ‘look better’ on the measures.
This session will discuss the experience to date with pay-for-performance and more generally with value-based purchasing, drawing on the speakers’ familiarity with reforms in a variety of countries. The goal is to use economic theory and evidence to inform future reforms in the area of provider payment.
Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Anthony Scott, University of Melbourne
Organizer: and Chair: Dominic Hodgkin, Brandeis University
Sunday, July 9, 11:45 am – 1:15 pm
Sunday, July 9, 2:45 pm – 4:15 pm
Competition is increasingly advocated as a force for improving health care quality, even in publicly-funded health systems. Recent large-scale empirical studies have demonstrated some of the potential for competition to improve healthcare quality and even save lives. However the mechanisms of competition in health care remain a black box and the many imperfections and idiosyncrasies of health care markets may give policymakers pause when deciding on whether to encourage competition between providers.
This session will explore cutting-edge research from three leading experts on the mechanisms by which competition affects healthcare quality. The speakers will describe new theoretical approaches to imperfections in the market for healthcare, such as the level of information patients have about provider quality, and the altruistic motivations of physicians. Evidence from experiments in the lab and in the field will be presented to validate theories and pose more questions for future research.
Ching-To Albert Ma, Boston University
Geir Godager, University of Oslo
Henry Mak, Indiana University – Purdue University
Organizer & Chair: Peter Sivey, RMIT University
Sunday, July 9, 4:45 pm – 6:15 pm
Universal Health Coverage is being embraced by the global community as a major policy goal to safeguard people’s access to health services and ensure financial protection. Researchers have explored a number of different approaches to provide efficient and equitable financing options for health care across the globe, particularly through social experiments or policy level interventions.
This session features presentations on experiment implementation methods and empirical evidence from various social experiments designed to study what works in financing health care and health insurance. Results from this body of literature will help to provide the evidence base for health financing policy and reform at the national and sub national level.
Paul Gertler, University of California at Berkeley
Winnie Yip, Harvard University
Ellen Van de Poel World Bank & Erasmus University
Co-chairs and organizers: Jui-fen Rachel Lu, Chang Gung University; and Jennifer Prah Ruger University of Pennsylvania
Monday, July 10, 8:00 am – 9:30 am
Monday, July 10, 10:00 am – 11:30 am
The use of value frameworks (or value assessment frameworks) is increasing, particularly in the US as healthcare payers have not embraced a sole method for determining value. These frameworks include the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s (MSKCC) Drug Abacus, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) Value Framework, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s (NCCN) Evidence Blocks, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association’s statement on Cost/Value Methodology and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Value Framework. Value frameworks are not confined to the US, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has followed suit with its Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. These frameworks are in contrast to the more formal health technology assessment processes in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada where there is a focus on cost effectiveness analysis, specifically cost per QALY estimates. Many of these frameworks appear to have been developed with little input from economists, despite the fact that defining ‘value’ and the associated trade-offs are core to our discipline.
In the 25th Anniversary Editorial in Health Economics Andrew Briggs put forward a “call to arms” for economists to engage in the debate on the appropriate use of value frameworks; this session is a first attempt at mobilizing the discipline and engaging in such a debate. Lou Garrison will open the session with a short introduction of current value framework initiatives; Steve Pearson will present on ICER’s value framework, the only one being used to evaluate new medicines at launch; Richard Willke will then present findings from the ISPOR Special Taskforce on value frameworks; Andrew Briggs will round up the session with his reflections on future directions.
Steven Pearson, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review
Richard Willke, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Andrew Briggs, University of Glasgow
Chair: Lou Garrison, University of Washington
Organizers: Paula Lorgelly, Office of Health Economics; and Carl Asche, University of Illinois
Monday, July 10, 11:45 am – 1:15 pm
Monday, July 10, 2:45 pm – 4:15 pm
The session will highlight the recommendations of the Second Panel, which released its final report in Fall 2016. The session will feature summary presentations, interactions between attending members of the Panel, and several opportunities for questions/discussion from the audience. An overview of the foundations of the Second Panel’s work and its key recommendations, particularly in terms of a reference case and an impact inventory, will be provided. Some of the controversies and highlights of the Panel’s work will be explored. Some of the issues that will be discussed by the panel include CEA and policy considerations and looking ahead to the next 20 years.
Lisa Prosser, University of Michigan
Joshua A Salomon, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Co-Chairs: David Meltzer, University of Chicago; and Peter Neumann, Tufts Medical Center
Monday, July 10, 4:45 pm – 6:15 pm
Tuesday, July 11, 8:00 am – 9:30 am
Tuesday, July 11, 10:00 am – 11:30 am
Childhood obesity presents the biggest global public health problem of modern times. Children who are overweight have an increased risk of disease, have lower quality of life and an increased risk of adult obesity causing a huge societal burden over the life course. Vast amounts of research funding have been invested across the world and whilst we now have a reasonable understanding of what causes childhood obesity, and what the consequences are, we have made comparatively less progress in identifying effective solutions to reverse this rising trend.
This session will focus on how economics can be used to help tackle childhood obesity. It will focus on what economics can tell us about how individuals behave, and markets perform to create environments that promote healthier behaviors and offerings on both the demand and supply sides. This session will focus on how fiscal incentives in particular might be used to change behavior, and on the application of economic evaluation to assist decision makers with implementing childhood obesity strategies.
Emma Frew, Birmingham University
Shu Wen Ng, University of North Carolina
Chair: Richard Smith, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Organizers: Joanna Coast, University of Bristol; and Bruce Hollingsworth, Lancaster University
Tuesday, July 11, 12:30 pm – 1:45 pm
This presentation will first show democracy's robust positive effect on GDP per capita, and then demonstrate that this is also associated with improvements in infant mortality and life expectancy. These results are robust across a variety of different empirical strategies, including a dynamic panel data model with rich dynamics for GDP or health, semi-parametric matching methods, and instrumental-variables approaches. We provide some evidence that the results are partly due to improved investment in public goods in democracies.