Health economics
-
We use data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to compare measures of socioeconomic inequality in psychological distress, measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), before (Waves 9 and the Interim 2019 Wave) and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (April to July 2020). Based on a caseness measure, the prevalence of psychological distress increased from 18.5% to 27.7% between the 2019 Wave and April 2020 with some reversion to earlier levels in subsequent months. Also, there was a systematic increase in total inequality in the Likert GHQ-12 score. ⋯ The most notable increase is evident for younger women. The contribution of working in an industry related to the COVID-19 response played a small role at Wave 9 and the Interim 2019 Wave, but more than tripled its share in April 2020. As the first wave of COVID-19 progressed, the contribution of demographics declined from their peak level in April and chronic health conditions, housing conditions, and neighbourhood characteristics increased their contributions to socioeconomic inequality.
-
This paper explores the relationship between the spatial distribution of excess deaths and the presence of care home facilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Using registry-based mortality data for Lombardy, one of the areas most severely hit by the pandemic we show that the presence of a care home in a municipality is associated with significantly higher excess death rates in the population. This effect appears to be driven by excess mortality in the elderly population of 70 years old and older. Our results are robust to controlling for the number of residents in each care home, suggesting that the presence of such facilities may have acted as one of factors contributing to the diffusion of COVID-19 at the local level.
-
Low-income pregnant women have been Medicaid eligible since the 1980s, but the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s expansion of Medicaid to women preconception has the potential to improve pregnancy and birth outcomes by removing delays in Medicaid enrollment. More substantially, the ACA expanded subsidized nongroup maternity coverage. Pre-ACA, nongroup health insurance had generally excluded maternity coverage and was prohibitively expensive for low-income individuals, but the ACA's creation of the Marketplace made maternity coverage mandatory and provides income-based subsidies. ⋯ I find expanding Medicaid to women prior to pregnancy significantly improves the share of women with a prenatal care visit in the first trimester for non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks. Expansions in non-Medicaid subsidized insurance, such as Marketplace insurance, significantly reduce the share of births paid by Medicaid and increased breastfeeding across all racial and ethnic groups. Neither type of subsidized insurance had significant, robust impacts on birth outcomes.
-
In principle, questionnaire data on public views about hypothetical trade-offs between improving total health and reducing health inequality can provide useful normative health inequality aversion parameter benchmarks for policymakers faced with real trade-offs of this kind. However, trade-off questions can be hard to understand, and one standard type of question finds that a high proportion of respondents-sometimes a majority-appear to give exclusive priority to reducing health inequality. ⋯ We found large effects of both interventions in reducing the proportion of respondents giving exclusive priority to reducing health inequality, though the median responses still implied a high degree of health inequality aversion and-unlike the video-the spreadsheet-based intervention introduced a substantial new minority of non-egalitarian responses. E-learning may introduce as well as avoid biases but merits further research and may be useful in other questionnaire studies involving trade-offs between conflicting values.
-
A new version of the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D-5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ-5D-5L data in decision-making. The study design followed an international research protocol. ⋯ Values range from -0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ-5D-5L both in England and internationally. Quality-adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.