Archive | Insurance RSS feed for this section

Autism, HBOT, and the new study by Rossignol et al.

21 Mar

I recently read the BMC Pediatrics article, “Hyperbaric treatment for children with autism: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial”1. I know this paper is attracting a lot of attention in the media, and it is certainly being ballyhooed about the internet. Hell, I’ve even received e-mail spam about this study! But I’m sorry to say, I don’t really share the excitement. In fact, I see what looks like a pretty significant error in the methodology of this study. It’s one of those types of potential errors that stand out like a strobe light or a siren – it’s really tough for me to pretend it’s not there.

Once again, I’m going to ask readers to set aside, for the moment, anything they may know about the role of hemoglobin in oxygen transport and how the minute increases (probably around 3-4%) in total blood oxygen content afforded by this kind of hyperbaric therapy, or simple O2 therapy for that matter, are probably pretty likely to be insignificant.

Both the paper and ClinicalTrials.gov2 list the Center for Autism Research and Education, Phoenix, Arizona, as a study location. This is a problem, because the stated treatment pressure in the study (1.3ATM) seems highly unlikely to actually be achievable in Phoenix with the equipment that was apparently used for this study.

As described in the section titled, “Interventions”:

“These procedures included covering control switches, inflating and deflating the chambers to simulate pressure changes, and masking the sounds from the chambers.”

The use of inflatable monoplace hyperbaric chambers, is a clear indication that the actual total pressures (and quite likely results of this study) would have been affected by the ambient air pressures at the times and locations of treatment. In fact, the ambient air pressure is the largest component of the stated treatment pressure in this study (ambient pressure + added treatment pressure = total treatment pressure).

Ambient pressure

Local atmospheric pressure is typically reported as sea-level pressure3 for its utility to aviation, and the meaningful interpretation of weather maps, etc., but the actual station pressure is affected by the elevation. The expected ambient atmospheric pressure, corrected for altitude, (or station pressure) in Phoenix, Arizona4 is 28.69 in Hg (where there is a modest elevation of 1161’ AMSL). Wanting to give this paper the benefit of the doubt, and knowing that “high pressure” weather is typical of the Phoenix climate, I looked at 30-day data5 for actual station pressure in Phoenix at a station of slightly lower altitude than the Center for Autism Research and Education. The 30-day mean station pressure is 28.81 in Hg, so I’ll use that one for calculations, as it will yield results more likely to be in the study’s favor.

Added treatment pressure

The actual operating pressure of the inflatable chambers, as stated by the manufacturer, is 4 PSI. 6,7 This pressure is also indicated on the Center for Autism Research and Education’s website:

“The chambers used at care utilize a pressure of 4 psi.”8

Total treatment pressure

The total treatment pressure can be easily calculated with the following conversions:
in Hg * 0.491 = PSI
PSI + PSIG = Total PSI
Total PSI * .068 = ATA

For Phoenix, Arizona, this gives a calculated total treatment pressure of 1.23 ATA.

28.81 * 0.491 = 14.15 PSI
14.15 PSI + 4 PSIG = 18.15 PSI
18.15 PSI * .068 = 1.23 ATA

Damn, that’s a pretty big difference from the paper’s stated 1.3 ATM – representing an addition of only .23 ATM (instead of .30 ATM) above mean sea-level pressure of 1 ATM.

I’ve corresponded with the lead author of this study in the past, and he stated that he observes gauge pressure of 4.15 PSI. Despite the manufacturer specs, the FDA-cleared medical device premarket notification, and the Center for Autism Research and Education’s website (which all indicate operating pressure of 4 PSI), and wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, I’ll use 4.15 PSI for the next calculation, as it will be more likely to yield results in the study’s favor.

28.81 * 0.491 = 14.15 PSI
14.15 PSI + 4.15 PSIG = 18.30 PSI
18.30 PSI * .068 = 1.24 ATA

It could be argued that treatment pressure for the other study locations were properly rounded up to 1.3 ATM (even though the actual pressures were quite likely to be considerably lower), however, even with all the calculations purposely leaned in favor of a higher number for Phoenix, Arizona, the study’s stated treatment pressure, there, should have properly rounded to 1.2 ATA! This suggests an overstatement of the added treatment pressure for the Phoenix location of 50% (.3 ATM is 150% of .2 ATM). Even if given the benefit of the doubt yet again, and an exception to proper rounding were made for solely for the Phoenix location in this study, the study’s likely overstatement in added treatment pressure for Phoenix is still a full 25%. (.3 ATM is 125% of .24 ATM – 25% more added pressure above 1 ATM was claimed in this paper, than was probably delivered).

I think this is a big enough boo-boo, that the editors of BMC Pediatrics should call for detailed errata. In the interest of scientific accuracy, it would seem prudent for BMC Pediatrics to:

1. Clarify for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM in this study is rounded up, and includes the ambient air pressure, or alternatively, state the estimated pressure in terms of ATA.

2. Clarify for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM in this study is an estimated pressure, since no actual measurements of ambient station pressure for the locations, and dates/times of treatments were reported.

3. Note for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM was not likely to be uniformly achievable across all study locations due to the use of inflatable hyperbaric chambers and changes in elevation (and atmospheric pressure) across study locations, potentially confounding the results of this study.

4. Note for its readership and the scientific community, that estimated pressures in the placebo control group are affected by these same issues that affect the treatment group, potentially confounding the results of this study further.

What do you think?

1 BMC Pediatrics 2009, 9:21doi:10.1186/1471-2431-9-21
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/9/21/abstract

2 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00335790

3Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 1 – Table 11-2
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/oso1/oso12/fmh1/fmh1ch11.htm

4 LAT/LON 33.5º N 118.08º W

5 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=psr&sid=KPHX&num=720

6 Medical device pre-market notification (FDA-cleared)

Click to access K001409.pdf

7 Manufacturer product sheet

Click to access vitaeris-lowres2007-8.pdf

8 http://www.center4autism.org/therapyHBOT.asp

Autism and Insurance

3 Mar

ResearchBlogging.orgOne of my favorite autism researchers is a guy named David Mandell. The reason is simple: he just asks good questions.

For example, he studied Vocational Rehabilitation and compared the results for autistics and non-autistic adults. There’s a guy looking at issues that will matter to me all too soon, and already matter to a lot of people already (people all too often forgotten even within greater the autism community: adults).

He looked at adult populations in psychiatric hospitals and found that many adults diagnosed with schizophrenia may be autistic.

Now he has addressed a big question: how much would adding insurance mandates for autism increase the premiums?

This question comes up a lot. For example, in California one of the big questions has been how can Kaiser get away without providing insurance coverage, even though California has an autism insurance mandate (AB88).

The YouTube video is about the first person to win coverage for therapies like Speech, Occupational and ABA from Kaiser:

Kaiser said this will “Significantly increase the cost” of insurance, with “their actuaries” estimating would be $5 to $7 per member per month.

As an aside, the Kaiser person in this meeting was dodging the question, and it is annoying that the interviewer let her do it. The question isn’t about how much it will cost, but the fact that California already mandates that the insurers cover the therapies and that kaiser is avoiding it’s legal responsibility.

As another aside–this is what insurance is for. We pay a little bit to share the risk. If it costs us all a little bit so that some small group gets help when they need it. We don’t question it when we are talking about, say, therapies for a stroke victim or someone in a bad accident. Why do we question it when it comes down to children with developmental delays?

Pennsylvania recently passed a mandate requiring autism insurance coverage with a $36,000 cap per year. Dr. Mandell works in Pennsylvania and used his state as an example in his paper, Quantifying the Impact of Autism Coverage
on Private Insurance Premiums.

That’s a RBQ (really big question) that comes up a lot when people are working on getting autism insurance mandates in their state: what will the cost be? Insurers, as one could imagine, claim the costs will be big. (again, avoiding the question of whether it is the right thing to do).

I won’t go into the details of the model Dr. Mandell’s team used. It was actually pretty straightforward, just as you would probably expect. Instead, let’s take a look at results. Figure 1 shows the increase in insurance premiums if autism therapies are covered.

Figure 1 from paper

Figure 1 from paper

The y-axis is the percent increase in insurance premiums, and the x-axis is the average expenditure per child with autism (in $1000’s). The model gives estimates for average expenditures from $10,000 to $36,000 (the cap in the Pennsylvania insurance mandate). Estimates are given for 3 different autism prevalences: 2.0 per 1000, 4.0 per 1000 and 6.7 per 1000. Note that 6.7 per 1000 is the same as 1 in 150.

Take a look at the highest estimate: $36,000 per child, 1 in 150 prevalence. Increase in insurance premiums? 2%. Yep, 2%.

Or, in the words of the study authors:

Even in the unlikely event that treated prevalence were to rise to the accepted community prevalence of 1 in 150 children, and per capita expenditures rose to $36,000 per year, the increase in the family contribution would reach $6.53 a month, or $78.31 per year

This may be the same amount as the Kaiser actuaries claimed. They claimed about $5-7 per “member”. Usually “member” means the primary insured (I.e. the parent whose job gives the insurance coverage). If, instead, they mean $5-7 per every insured family member, then Kaiser’s estimate is likely about 4x higher than prof. Mandell’s team’s calculation.

Prof. Mandell’s team recognizes that this $78.31 per year is likely an overestimate.

To that extent, the estimates presented here may overestimate actual increases to premiums, given that some healthcare expenditures would remain the same but now would be associated with an ASD diagnosis.

One reason they give is that many children with autism may already be receiving insurance paid medical treatment, but under a different diagnosis. I.e. doctors may be avoiding the autism label in order to get reimbursed. So, for some kids and some therapies, an “autism” mandate may just shift the costs already being paid by the insurance companies from some other diagnosis to autism.

Another reason why this estimate may be low comes to my mind, even though it isn’t discussed in the paper. I know this is anecdotal, but medical expenses are likely highest for younger kids. That’s when the OT, ST, and ABA type therapies will be most common. It doesn’t make sense that the average expenses would be the same for older kids as for younger kids. So, when they calculate based on $36,000 per child per year, they are likely overestimating the expenditures for the older kids (say ages 10-20).

Another possible cause of over-estimating the expenditures. When they estimate for the full CDC prevalence (1 in 150, or 6.7 per 1000), they are including all ASD’s. People with, say, Aspergers or PDD-NOS have significant challenges, no doubt. However, my guess is that they do not require the same level of medical expenses as someone with autistic disorder. So, by assuming the prevalence for all ASD’s, Dr. Mandell’s group may have overestimated the expenses.

Now, it is worth noting that when one includes ABA in the picture, $36,000 per year may not cover everything. A 20 hour week program could cost more than $36,000.

But, leave all of that out for now. Take the high end estimate and ask, will a 2% increase in premiums to make such a big difference? I know there is a risk of this discussion getting sidetracked into an ABA discussion. But, consider adding 2 sessions a week of speech therapy and/or 1 session a week of OT to a young autistic kid’s life. Think of the difference that could make. These are life-long benefits. Isn’t that worth something comparable to, say, the amount of insurance premiums we pay to cover heart surgeries or other very expensive medical interventions for adults?

Or to put it another way: if my insurance company said, “Sure, we can give your autistic kid these therapies now. But, if you ever have a heart attack, you are going to die on the table because we won’t pay for heart surgery.” I’d sign on the bottom line. No, I am not asking everyone to make that choice, or to sacrifice their own benefits for other people’s kids. But, isn’t improving the life of a young child worth at least as much as what we spend to improve the life of older adults?

James N. Bouder, Stuart Spielman, David S. Mandell (2009). Brief Report: Quantifying the Impact of Autism Coverage on Private Insurance Premiums Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders DOI: 10.1007/s10803-009-0701-z

This paper has also been discussed in the Translating Autism blog, which is where I found out about it.

Newer Entries →