IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i4p429-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, pneumann@hsph.harvard.edu)

  • Allison B. Rosen

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, University of Michigan School of Medicine)

  • Dan Greenberg

    (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA)

  • Natalia V. Olchanski

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • Richa Pande

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • Richard H. Chapman

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • Patricia W. Stone

    (Columbia University, School of Nursing, New York, NY)

  • Silvia Ondategui-Parra

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • John Nadai

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • Joanna E. Siegel

    (U.S. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Rockville, MD)

  • Milton C. Weinstein

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

Abstract

Purpose. We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. Data and Methods. We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorites. Results. CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. Conclusions. Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Neumann & Allison B. Rosen & Dan Greenberg & Natalia V. Olchanski & Richa Pande & Richard H. Chapman & Patricia W. Stone & Silvia Ondategui-Parra & John Nadai & Joanna E. Siegel & Milton C. W, 2005. "Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 429-436, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:429-436
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276853
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05276853?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yot Teerawattananon & Steve Russell & Miranda Mugford, 2007. "A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Literature in Thailand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 467-479, June.
    2. Maison, Patrick & Zanetti, Laura & Solesse, Anne & Bouvenot, Gilles & Massol, Jacques, 2013. "The public health benefit of medicines: How it has been assessed in France? The principles and results of five years’ experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 273-284.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:429-436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.