Building better models: If we build them, will policy makers use them? Toward integrating modeling into health care decisions

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 656-659

  Mandelblatt, Jeanne ^a   Schechter, Clyde ^b   Levy, David ^a   Zauber, Ann ^c   Chang, Yaojen ^a   Etzioni, Ruth ^d  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; POLICY MAKING; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84868135081     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12458978     Document Type: Editorial

References (47)

1. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices-overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 667-677
2. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 701-711
3. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 690-700
4. Pitman R, Fisman D, Zaric GS, et al. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-5. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 712-721
5. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 678-689
6. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 722-732
7. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 733-743
8. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Gold MR Siegel JE Russell LB Weinstein MC, ed. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1996 :
9. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003 ; 6 (1). 9-17
10. Saha S, Hoerger T, Pignone M, Teutsch S, Helfand M, Mandelblatt J. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2001 ; 20 (3). 36-43
11. Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. From principle to public policy: using cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994 ; 13 (3). 206-14
12. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Modeling to guide public health research and priorities. Available from: http://cisnet.cancer.gov/ . Accessed 20 July 2012.
13. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005 ; 8 (5). 521-33
14. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research, Board on Health Care Services. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/en/reports/2009/comparativeeffectivenessresearchpriorities. aspx. Accessed 1 July 2012.
15. Eddy D. ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup. CA Cancer J Clin. 1980 ; 30 (4). 193-240
16. Eddy DM. The frequency of cervical cancer screening: comparison of a mathematical model with empirical data. Cancer. 1987 ; 60 (5). 1117-22
17. Muller CM, Mandelblatt J, Schechter C. The Cost and Effectiveness of Screening for Cervical Cancer in Elderly Women: A Paper in the OTAs Series on Preventive Services under Medicare. Washington, DC: US Congress, Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment; 1990
18. Eddy D. Breast Cancer Screening for Medicare Beneficiaries: Effectiveness, Costs to Medicare and Medical Resources Required. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment; 1987
19. The OTA Legacy. Available from: http://www.princeton.edu/∼ota/. Accessed 1 July 2012.
20. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press ; 1999 :
21. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/. Accessed 24 July 2012.
22. Elsinga E, Rutten FF. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: the case of the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 1997 ; 45 (4). 605-20
23. Wisnivesky JP, Mushlin AI, Sicherman N, Henschke C. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: preliminary results of baseline screening. Chest. 2003 ; 124 (2). 614-21
24. Manser R, Dalton A, Carter R, Byrnes G, Elwood M, Campbell DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer. 2005 ; 48 (2). 171-85
25. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu C. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer. 2001 ; 32 (3). 227-36
26. Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Frick KD, Eng J, Goodman SN, Powe NR. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2003 ; 289 (3). 313-22
27. Van BallegooijenMHabbemaJDFBoerRZauberABrownML. Report to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of fecal occult blood tests with different test characteristics in the context of annual screening in the Medicare population. August2003. Accessed from: http://www.cms.gov/mcd/viewtechassess.asp?where=search&tid=20
28. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, Wilschut JA, Zauber AG, van BM. Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010 ; 153 (6). 368-77
29. Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 ; 102 (16). 1238-52
30. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van BM, Kuntz KM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008 ; 149 (9). 659-69
31. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009 ; 151 (10). 738-47
32. Levy DT, Mabry PL, Graham AL, Orleans CT, Abrams DB. Reaching Healthy People 2010 by 2013: a SimSmoke simulation. Am J Prev Med. 2010 ; 38 (3). S373-81
33. Vogelaar I, Van Ballegooijen M, Schrag D, et al. How much can current interventions reduce colorectal cancer mortality in the U.S.? Mortality projections for scenarios of risk-factor modification, screening, and treatment. Cancer. 2006 ; 107 (7). 1624-33
34. Neumann PJ, Claxton K, Weinstein MC. The FDA's regulation of health economic information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 ; 19 (5). 129-37
35. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice: applying cost-effectiveness analysis. The inside story. JAMA. 1992 ; 268 (18). 2575-82
36. Goldie SJ. Public health policy and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003 ; (31). 102-10
37. Branson B. Current HIV epidemiology and revised recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings. J Med Virol. 2007 ; 79: S6-10
38. Walensky RP, Weinstein MC, Kimmel AD, et al. Routine human immunodeficiency virus testing: an economic evaluation of current guidelines. Am J Med. 2005 ; 118 (3). 292-300
39. Saslow D, Castle PE, Cox JT, et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 ; 57 (1). 7-28
40. Cancer Lett. 2012 ; 38 (29). 1-8
41. When evidence collides with anecdote, politics, and emotion: breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010 ; 152 (8). 531-2
42. Berlin L, Hall FM. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization. Radiology. 2010 ; 255 (2). 311-6
43. Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 ; 196 (2). W112-6
44. Mandelblatt J, Cronin K. Response to Hendrick and Helvie by the Cancer Intervention Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Working Group. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 ; 197: W792
45. Schlessinger L, Eddy DM. Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems-the mathematical formulation. J Biomed Inform. 2002 ; 35 (1). 37-50
46. 112th US Congress, 2nd session, FY13 budget, House Committee on Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013. Available from: http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-112hr-sc-ap- fy13-laborhhsed.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012.
47. Morrisey J, Hassmiller-Lich K, Anhang-Price R, Mandelblatt J. Computational modeling and multilevel cancer interventions. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 ; 44: 55-66