Predictive validation and forecasts of short-term changes in healthcare expenditure associated with changes in smoking behavior in the United States
James Lightwood aff001; Steve Anderson aff003; Stanton A. Glantz aff002
Působiště autorů: School of Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America aff001; Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America aff002; JPMorgan Chase & Co., San Francisco, California, United States of America aff003; Analytical Steve Consulting, San Francisco, California, United States of America aff004; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America aff005; Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
Out-of-sample forecasts are used to evaluate the predictive adequacy of a previously published national model of the relationship between smoking behavior and real per capita health care expenditure using state level aggregate data. In the previously published analysis, the elasticities between changes in state adult current smoking prevalence and mean cigarette consumption per adult current smoker and healthcare expenditures were 0.118 and 0.108 This new analysis provides evidence that the model forecasts out-of-sample well.
Out-of-sample predictive performance was used to find the best specification of trend variables and the best model to bridge a break in survey data used in the analysis. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to calculate forecast intervals for the effect of changes in smoking behavior on expected real per capita healthcare expenditures.
The model specification produced good-out-of-sample forecasts and stable recursive regression parameter estimates spanning the break in survey methodology. In 2014, a 1% relative reduction in adult current smoking prevalence and mean cigarette consumption per adult current smoker decreased real per capita healthcare expenditure by 0.104% and 0.113% the following year, respectively (elasticity). A permanent relative reduction of 5% reduces expected real per capita healthcare expenditures $99 (95% CI $44, $154) in the next year and $31.5 billion for the entire US (in 2014 dollars), holding other factors constant. The reductions accumulate linearly for at least five years following annual permanent decreases of 5% each year. Given the limitations of time series modelling in a relatively short time series, the effect of changes in smoking behavior may occur over several years, even though the model contains only one lag for the explanatory variables.
Reductions in smoking produce substantial savings in real per capita healthcare expenditure in short to medium term. A 5% relative drop in smoking prevalence (about a 0.87% reduction in absolute prevalence) combined with a 5% drop in consumption per remaining smoker (about 16 packs/year) would be followed by a $31.5 billion reduction in healthcare expenditure (in 2014 dollars).
Forecasting – Health care policy – Health economics – Hispanic people – Instrumental variable analysis – Smoking habits – Surveys – Tobacco control
1. Lightwood J, Glantz SA. Smoking Behavior and Healthcare Expenditure in the United States, 1992–2009: Panel Data Estimates. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002020. Epub 2016/05/11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002020 27163933; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4862673.
2. Clark TE. Can Out-of-Sample Forecast Comparisons Help Prevent Overfitting? Journal of Forecasting. 2004;23:115–39.
3. Hansen PR. A Winner's Curse for Econometric Models: On the Joint Distribution of In-Sample Fit and Out-of-Sample Fit and its Implications for Model Selection. Department of Economics: Stanford University, 2010.
4. Giacomini R, White H. Tests of conditional predictive ability. Econometrica. 2006;74(6):1545–78.
5. Elliott G, Timmermann A. Economic Forecasting. Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2016.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey (BRFSS) Data Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1984–2014 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.html.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methodologic changes in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 2011 and potential effects on prevalence estimates. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(22):410–3. Epub 2012/06/08. 22672976.
8. Dodd KE, Mazurek JM. Effect of Asthma Call-back Survey methodology changes on work-related asthma estimates, 19 states, 2007–2012. J Asthma. 2016;53(4):382–6. Epub 2016/02/13. doi: 10.3109/02770903.2015.1101133 26865467; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4934376.
9. Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Methodologic changes in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 2011 and potential effects on prevalence estimates. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(22):410–3. Epub 2012/06/08. 22672976.
10. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts: Regional District of Columbia: Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://apps.bea.gov/regional/docs/regions.cfm.
11. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure Data, State (Residence) 1991–2014 Baltimore, MD2017 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsStateHealthAccountsResidence.html.
12. Orzechowski W, Walker RC. The Tax Burden on Tobacco-Historical Compilation, vol. 49. Arlington, VA: Orzechowski & Walker, 2014.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). State System: Custom Reports: Policy: Smoking & Tobacco Use: Cigarette Sales-OW: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://nccd.cdc.gov/STATESystem/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=OSH_State.CustomReports.
14. United States Census Bureau. State Population by Characteristics: 2010–2017: Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin—5 race groups (5 race alone or in combination groups) (sc-est2017-alldata5.csv): United States Bureau of the Census; 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/state-detail.html.
15. United States Census Bureau. Population Estimates for States by Age, Race, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 1990 (ST-99-34) to July 1, 1999 (ST-99-43): United States Bureau of the Census; 2016 [cited 2018 Nov 7]. Available from: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/1990-2000/state/asrh/.
16. United States Census Bureau. Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 (st-est00int-agesex.csv): United States Bureau of the Census; 2012 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2000-2010-state.html.
17. United States Census Bureau. State Population Estimates and Demographic Components of Change: 1981 to 1989, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin (st_int_asrh.txt): United States Bureau of the Census; 2016 [cited 2007 December 7]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/1980s-state.html.
18. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). State Annual Personal Income and Employment 1929–2016: Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 10]. Available from: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm.
19. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers (Current Series): Department of Labor; 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 5]. Available from: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu.
20. Schaffer ME. xtivreg2: Stata module to perform extended IV/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression for panel data models <URL: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456501.html> 2010.
21. Johnston J, DiNardo J. Econometric Methods, 4th ed. 4 ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
22. Hansen PR, Timmermann A. Choice of Sample Split in Out-of-Sample Forecast Evaluation. Florence, Italy: European University Institute, Department of Economics, 2012.
23. Hansen P, Lunde A, Nason J. The model confidence set. Econometrica. 2011;79(2):453–97.
24. Bernardi M, Catania L. The Model Confidence Set package for R. International Journal of Computational Economics and Forecasting. 2018;8(2):144–58. doi: 10.1504/IJCEE.2018.091037.
25. Baum CF, Schaffer M, Stillman S. Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing. The Stata Journal. 2003;3(1):1–31.
26. Hassler U, Kuzin V. Cointegration Analysis under Measupmirement Errors. Frankfurt, Germany: Goethe-University, 2008 April 25. Report No.
27. Montalvo JG. Comparing cointegrating regression estimators: Some additional Monte Carlo results. Economics Letters. 1995;48:229–34.
28. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R, version 3.4.2, <https://www.r-project.org/foundation>. 2017.
29. u>StataCorp LP. Stata version 15. College Station, Texas2017.
30. Eckstein J, Riedmeullter T. Yasai. New Brunswick, NJ: Department of Management Science & Informaton Systems, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University; 2018.
31. Decker SL, Lipton BJ, Sommers BD. Medicaid Expansion Coverage Effects Grew In 2015 With Continued Improvements In Coverage Quality. Health affairs. 2017;36(5):819–25. Epub 2017/05/04. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1462 28461347.
32. Selden TM, Lipton BJ, Decker SL. Medicaid Expansion And Marketplace Eligibility Both Increased Coverage, With Trade-Offs In Access, Affordability. Health affairs. 2017;36(12):2069–77. Epub 2017/12/05. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0830 29200332.
33. Soni A, Hendryx M, Simon K. Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act and Insurance Coverage in Rural and Urban Areas. J Rural Health. 2017;33(2):217–26. Epub 2017/01/24. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12234 28114726.
34. Hudson JL, Moriya AS. Medicaid Expansion For Adults Had Measurable 'Welcome Mat' Effects On Their Children. Health affairs. 2017;36(9):1643–51. Epub 2017/09/07. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0347 28874493.
35. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure Data NHE Summary including share of GDP, CY 1960–2016 [ZIP, 28KB] 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html.
36. Ebarhardt M. Nonstationary Panel Econometrics and Common Factor Models: An Introductory Reader. Oxford, UK: Department of Economics, Oxford University, 2009.
37. Enders W. Applied Econometric Time Series. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.
38. Fishman PA, Khan ZM, Thompson EE, Curry SJ. Health care costs among smokers, former smokers, and never smokers in an HMO. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(2):733–49. Epub 2003/06/06. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00142 12785570; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1360912.
39. Hockenberry JM, Curry SJ, Fishman PA, Baker TB, Fraser DL, Cisler RA, et al. Healthcare costs around the time of smoking cessation. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(6):596–601. Epub 2012/05/23. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.019 22608375; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3358703.
40. Musich S, Faruzzi SD, Lu C, McDonald T, Hirschland D, Edington DW. Pattern of medical charges after quitting smoking among those with and without arthritis, allergies, or back pain. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(2):133–42. Epub 2003/11/19. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.2.133 14621408.
41. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.
Článek vyšel v časopise
2020 Číslo 1
- Aktuální legislativní změny týkající se zdravotnických prostředků – přehledné shrnutí v kostce
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Českým pacientům je nově k dispozici extrakt léčebného konopí. Jaké benefity přináší?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul
- Od března je hrazena malá molekula slibující velké výsledky hned ve dvou indikacích