Literature DB >> 18261812

Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data.

Stephen Martin1, Nigel Rice2, Peter C Smith2.   

Abstract

Empirical evidence has hitherto been inconclusive about the strength of the link between health care spending and health outcomes. This paper uses programme budgeting data prepared by 295 English Primary Care Trusts to model the link for two specific programmes of care: cancer and circulatory diseases. A theoretical model is developed in which decision-makers must allocate a fixed budget across programmes of care so as to maximize social welfare, in the light of a health production function for each programme. This yields an expenditure equation and a health outcomes equation for each programme. These are estimated for the two programmes of care using instrumental variables methods. All the equations prove to be well specified. They suggest that the cost of a life year saved in cancer is about 13,100 pounds, and in circulation about 8000 pounds. These results challenge the widely held view that health care has little marginal impact on health. From a policy perspective, they can help set priorities by informing resource allocation across programmes of care. They can also help health technology agencies decide whether their cost-effectiveness thresholds for accepting new technologies are set at the right level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18261812     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Econ        ISSN: 0167-6296            Impact factor:   3.883


  40 in total

1.  Real economics needs to reflect real decisions: a response to Johnson.

Authors:  Mark Sculpher; Karl Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Spending more money, saving more lives? The relationship between avoidable mortality and healthcare spending in 14 countries.

Authors:  Richard Heijink; Xander Koolman; Gert P Westert
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06-08

3.  Resource allocation and purchasing in the health sector: the English experience.

Authors:  Peter C Smith
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 9.408

4.  Medical spending and the health of the elderly.

Authors:  Jack Hadley; Timothy Waidmann; Stephen Zuckerman; Robert A Berenson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Value for money: an evaluation of health spending in Canada.

Authors:  Ruolz Ariste; Livio Di Matteo
Journal:  Int J Health Econ Manag       Date:  2017-01-03

6.  Increased Patient Cost-Sharing, Weak US Economy, and Poor Health Habits: Implications for Employers and Insurers.

Authors:  Melinda C Haren; Kirk McConnell; Arthur F Shinn
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2009-04

7.  NICE's cost-effectiveness range: should it be lowered?

Authors:  J P Raftery
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System.

Authors:  Laura Catherine Edney; Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Terence Chai Cheng; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Does Medical Expansion Improve Population Health?

Authors:  Hui Zheng; Linda K George
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  2018-02-01

10.  Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery.

Authors:  Martin Henriksson; Stephen Palmer; Ruoling Chen; Jacqueline Damant; Natalie K Fitzpatrick; Keith Abrams; Aroon D Hingorani; Ulf Stenestrand; Magnus Janzon; Gene Feder; Bruce Keogh; Martin J Shipley; Juan-Carlos Kaski; Adam Timmis; Mark Sculpher; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-01-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.