Influence of economic evaluations on public health policy

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 28-32

  Adeoye, Sanjo ^a   Bozic, Kevin J ^b  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost identification analysis; Cost utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Healthcare policy

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845466600     PISSN: 10419918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BCO.0b013e328010c4fd     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Bozic KJ, Rosenberg AG, Huckman RS, et al. Economic evaluation in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85:129-142.
2. Haentjens P, Annemans L. Health economics and the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85-B:1093-1099.
3. Maniadakis N, Gray A. Health economics and orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82-B:2-8.
4. Myers J, McCabe S, Gohmann S. Economic analysis in hand surgery. J Hand Surg (Am) 2006; 31:664-668.
5. Haentjens P, Autier P, Barette M, et al. The economic cost of hip fractures among elderly women: a one-year, prospective, observational cohort study with matched-pair analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83:493-500.
6. Bozic KJ, Katz P, Cisternas M, et al. Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:570-576. This study compares primary and revision total hip arthroplasties with regard to actual hospital resource utilization. The results of this study influenced the CMS to distinguish the two procedures in its reimbursement policy.
7. Bozic KJ, Katz P, Showstack J, et al. Using clinical and economic outcome data to influence health policy in the United States: the case of total joint replacement. Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation Clinical Research Award Recipient. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting. March 2006. Chicago, Illinois. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Publishing, Rosemont, Illinois. This paper illustrates how economic evaluation research can influence public policy in a very practical way. It presents in detail how the results of an economic analysis influenced the CMS to distinguish between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty in its reimbursement policy.
8. Bozic KJ, Saleh KJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19:180-189.
9. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, et al. Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:1253-1259. This study evaluates the quality of cost-utility analyses presented in orthopaedic literature published between 1976 and 2001.
10. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Med Decis Making 2005; 25:429-436.
11. Bozic KJ, Morshed S, Silverstein MD, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies in orthopaedics. The case of alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88:706-714. This study actually applies the concept of cost-utility analysis to evaluate alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty.
12. Brauer CA, Manns BJ, Ko M, et al. An economic evaluation of operative compared with nonoperative management of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:2741-2749.
13. Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11:23-31.
14. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1339-1341.
15. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Healthcare. Economic analysis of healthcare technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:61-70.
16. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1253-1258.
17. Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, et al. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst 2003; 1:2-30.
18. Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE. Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. Milbank Q 2002; 80:125-154.
19. Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values? BMJ 2004; 329:1233-1236.
20. Heller RF, Gemmell I, Wilson EC, et al. Using economic analyses for local priority setting: the population cost-impact approach. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5:45-54.
21. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22:1097-1107.
22. Sonnad SS, Greenberg D, Rosen AB, et al. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare 2005; 21:399-402. This is a unique study that examines the diffusion of published cost-utility analyses, as a new 'technology', in health policy and practice.
23. Adler MD. QALYs and policy evaluation: a new perspective. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2006; 6:1-92.
24. Gillick MR. Medicare coverage for technological innovations - time for new criteria? N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2199-2203.
25. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1516-1522. An in-depth look at the use of cost-effective analysis in the Medicare program.
26. Tunis SR. Why Medicare has not established criteria for coverage decisions. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2196-2198.
27. Birch S, Gafni A. The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Healthcare Manag Sci 2004; 7:35-41.
28. Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy 2000; 52:179-192.
29. Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294:2618-2622.
30. Neumann PJ. Why don't Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am J Manag Care 2004; 10:308-312.
31. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:964-972.