Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?

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 and Milton C. Weinstein
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 4, 429-436

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.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-utility analysis; burden of disease; disability-adjusted life years (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276853 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:429-436

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276853

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().