Federal Sponsorship of Cost-Effectiveness and Related Research in Health Care- 1997–2001

May 1, 2005, 00:00
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04037.x
https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(10)62569-7/fulltext
Title : Federal Sponsorship of Cost-Effectiveness and Related Research in Health Care- 1997–2001
Citation : https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/action/showCitFormats?pii=S1098-3015(10)62569-7&doi=10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04037.x
First page :
Section Title :
Open access? : No
Section Order : 5

Objectives

To describe recent federal sponsorship of cost-effectiveness and related health economics research to provide insight into the functioning of existing research support systems and assess the roles of federal health agencies.

Methods

Using the PubMed database, we identified cost-effectiveness and related publications citing support from a US government entity and published during the period of 1997 through 2001, and audited them for information on funding sources, study type, and content focus.

Results

Five Department of Health and Human Services agencies and centers and the Veterans Administration are cited as funders in 74% of 520 federally supported health economics publications we identified. Three-fourths of federally supported publications address five areas of high disease burden: infections, cancer, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, and substance abuse. Other high burden diseases, including mental health, diabetes, and injuries, receive less attention. Federal support of health economics studies of health education and care delivery—intervention types underexamined in the field—is relatively strong but most often focuses on substance abuse or mental health services. Each of the top federal funders has a distinct  funding  pattern,  but  there  are  substantial  areas  of overlap within which we could not identify content domains specific to one funder or another.

Conclusions

Federal support of health economics research has paralleled growth in the field. Federal funders support projects consistent with their mission and focus on high-burden disease areas. However, overlapping funding areas, ambiguity concerning agency interests within overlapping content areas, and gaps in some disease and intervention areas suggest that the coordination of health economics research funding could be improved.

Categories :
  • Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
  • Economic Evaluation
  • Health Policy & Regulatory
  • Literature Review & Synthesis
  • Public Spending & National Health Expenditures
  • Study Approaches
Tags :
  • cost-effectiveness
  • federal funding
  • federal health agencies
  • health economics
  • research priorities
Regions :
  • Western Europe
ViH Article Tags :