Seriously, Arn, do you think weight loss pills save money? – Healthcare Blog
By Al Lewis
Last month, major welfare consulting firm Aon released a “study” claim:
Important opportunities to reduce health costs for employers and enhance overall workforce health through an integrated obesity management program, including GLP-1 drugs.
Of course, this is contrary to what most researchers have shown. In the immortal words of the great philosopher, the terrible strait: “Two people say they are Jesus, and one of them must be wrong.” As we delve into it in a minute, we quickly see who is wrong (well, meaning weight loss pill). But first, let's review Aon's previous analysis.
Aon's short history
Aon claimed that honors saved 8%, but it seems that on the day when the biostatistics professor explained how the control group worked and the fifth grade math teacher explained the average work, it seems they had to be absent by chance.
Then they claimed Lyra – this is a Spiritual Health Company-Implement the following Non-spiritual Improvement for patients who had at least one mental health encounter with one of the 220,000 High-Quality Providers:
§A 30% reduction No– Emergency visits related to subject health
§ Generic drug spending decreased by 30%
§ Professional drug spending decreased by 20%
To some extent, starting the Y-axis at $4,000 to improve the optics, Aon also revealed that Lyra achieved a high “efficiency ratio”:
I can't object to this discovery because – despite this field for thirty years, about 100 articles/interviews/quotations/citations include Wall Street Journaltwo trade-selling books and a Harvard Business School case study – I still don't know what the “efficiency ratio” is, except that it has nothing to do with comparing participants in mental health studies with non-participants. Obviously, the “efficiency ratio” in health care can measure how quickly a hospital outweighs its inventory. Therefore, AON's use of the term is reminiscent of the immortal word from the great philosopher Bob Uecker: “A little juus outside.”
When asked to explain any of these things publicly and privately, Aon slammed. This may be wise.
They won't respond here, either, because they understand the effects of twists and turns. (Barbara sued a photographer for taking her Malibu mansion from the air as a daily part of the state’s request to document erosion along the California coastline. Six people downloaded the image before filing the lawsuit. After she sued, one million People downloaded the image. In addition, she had to pay attorney fees if she lost money. )
Recently, it seems that they may have shaken hands in PBM cookie jars as well.
Aon's weight loss pill research
When acknowledging the first year’s cost increase, Aon found a 7% “bend” in the second year’s cost curve, while the cost curve for participants compared to the “exactly matched control group.” Match controls, no matter how precise, are invalid during the period. That's why the FDA doesn't allow pharmaceutical companies to use them. Most notably, in the health care industry, some very stable geniuses inadvertently proved this when publishing this picture. They believe that participants in their health program saved money with matching non-participants. Unfortunately for them, looking at the X-axis roughly reveals the “total savings” that the appropriately named “treatment” begins Two years before treatment beginssimply because volunteer participants are motivated.
The related problem is that over a two-year period (the same duration as the AON study), most weight loss drug users quit. However, dropout was not considered (or mentioned) in this study.
Only those who are still taking drugs are counted. Others will “lose follow-up.” Ultimately only the program calculated in this program is called the “survivor bias” or the “last man status” fallacy. That's why any weight loss program performs well – most people quit most programs because they don't succeed. Ironically, the higher the dropout rate, the better the results are usually among the few survivors.
Literally, “bending” 7% is also impossible Comprehensive By reducing the speed of heart attacks and strokes by 44%. That's because these events simply aren't enough to do that. Among the <65 insured populations, the rate of both is about every 1,000. And Aon doesn't even claim that these events have decreased by 44%. They claim to reduce the “risk” of these events by 44%. Cynical people may find that if they do reduce Actual events By this number, they will say so.
There is no need to announce this conclusion. We make the weight loss pill economics calculator without it. Enter your own assumptions and decide for yourself.
How they determine from a claim is anyone’s risk is anyone’s guess. Suppose that the twins had parents who died early in heart disease. The first one is very worried about this. He took statins, metformin, maybe a cardiologist, got a stent, etc. Second, he did not mitigate his genetic risks. The second risk is much higher than the first risk, but the “risk score” would say the opposite. Many people don't even know that they are at risk of coronary artery disease. Then how did Arn know?
What is Aon doing?
Of course, an actuarial consulting firm whose reputation is based on the foundation of an actuarial consulting firm will not risk reputation by writing similar articles, right?
OK, of course not for free.
They got paid by Lyra, received Accolade, and (accreditedly) paid by Express Scripts. In this case – for anyone who doesn't want to turn on the free weight drug calculator above to figure out themselves – Aon will “work with employers to model the long-term business impact of adopting GLP-1”.
And, since their model is wrong, the “cooperation” with Aon is – again in the immortal Straits words – “nothing”.
Al Lewis is Quizzify,President Verification Institute and Bete Noir in the health industry. He blogs occasionally What do they say?
