Federal Data for Conducting Patient-centered Outcomes Research on Economic Outcomes.
Journal
Medical care
ISSN: 1537-1948
Titre abrégé: Med Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0230027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2023
01 07 2023
Historique:
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
23
5
2023
entrez:
23
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients are increasingly interested in data on the economic burdens and impacts of health care choices; caregivers, employers, and payers are also interested in these costs. Although there have been various federal investments into patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), an assessment of the coverage and gaps in federally funded data for PCOR economic evaluations has not been produced to date. To classify relevant categories of PCOR economic costs, to assess current federally funded data for coverage of these categories, and to identify gaps for future research and collection. A targeted internet search was conducted to identify a list of relevant outcomes and data sources. The study team assessed data sources for coverage of economic outcomes. A technical panel and key informant interviews were used for evaluation and feedback. Four types of formal health care sector costs, 3 types of informal health care sector costs, and 10 types of non-health care sector costs were identified as relevant for PCOR economic evaluations. Twenty-nine federally funded data sources were identified. Most contained elements on formal costs. Data on informal costs (eg, transportation) were less common, and non-health care sector costs (eg, productivity) were the least common. Most data sources were annual, cross-sectional, nationally representative individual-level surveys. The existing federal data infrastructure captures many areas of the economic burden of health and health care, but gaps remain. Research from multiple data sources and potential future integrations may offset gaps in individual data sources. Linkages are promising strategies for future research on patient-centered economic outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients are increasingly interested in data on the economic burdens and impacts of health care choices; caregivers, employers, and payers are also interested in these costs. Although there have been various federal investments into patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), an assessment of the coverage and gaps in federally funded data for PCOR economic evaluations has not been produced to date.
OBJECTIVES
To classify relevant categories of PCOR economic costs, to assess current federally funded data for coverage of these categories, and to identify gaps for future research and collection.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A targeted internet search was conducted to identify a list of relevant outcomes and data sources. The study team assessed data sources for coverage of economic outcomes. A technical panel and key informant interviews were used for evaluation and feedback.
RESULTS
Four types of formal health care sector costs, 3 types of informal health care sector costs, and 10 types of non-health care sector costs were identified as relevant for PCOR economic evaluations. Twenty-nine federally funded data sources were identified. Most contained elements on formal costs. Data on informal costs (eg, transportation) were less common, and non-health care sector costs (eg, productivity) were the least common. Most data sources were annual, cross-sectional, nationally representative individual-level surveys.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing federal data infrastructure captures many areas of the economic burden of health and health care, but gaps remain. Research from multiple data sources and potential future integrations may offset gaps in individual data sources. Linkages are promising strategies for future research on patient-centered economic outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37219065
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001862
pii: 00005650-202307000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
462-469Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Armstrong GL, Conn LA, Pinner RW. Trends in infectious disease mortality in the United States during the 20th century. JAMA. 1999;281:61–66.
Crimmins EM. Lifespan and healthspan: past, present, and promise. Gerontologist. 2015;55:901–911.
World Health Organization. The World health report: 1999: making a difference. 1999. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42167
Martin AB, Hartman M, Lassman D, et al. National health care spending in 2019: steady growth for the fourth consecutive year. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40:14–24.
Marmot M, Allen JJ. Social determinants of health equity. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(suppl 4):S517–S519.
Zimmerman FJ, Anderson NW. Trends in health equity in the United States by race/ethnicity, sex, and income, 1993-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e196386.
Case SM, O’Leary MAJ, Kim N, et al. Older adults’ recognition of tradeoffs in healthcare decision making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:1658–1662.
Dionne F, Mitton C. Health care trade-offs: a necessary reality for every health system. March 20, 2018. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20180316.120106/full/
doi: 10.1377/forefront.20180316.120106/full/
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–226.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The National Academies Press; 2009.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress. 2009. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/FCCCER-Report-to-the-President-and-Congress-2009.pdf
Jayadevappa R. Patient-centered outcomes research and patient-centered care for older adults: a perspective. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721417700759.
PCORI. Patient-centered outcomes research. 2013. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.pcori.org/research-results/about-our-research/patient-centered-outcomes-research/
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2016.
116th Congress. Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020; Pub. L. No. 116-94, H.R. 1865, 2019.
Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20:327–337.
Stulberg JJ, Haut ER. Practical guide to surgical data sets: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (NIS). JAMA Surg. 2018;153:586–587.
Epstein RM, Fiscella K, Lesser CS, et al. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:1489–1495.
Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 0 3):S73–S79.
Berk M, Wilensky GR. How to make the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey even more useful. 2016. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20161102.057386/full/
doi: 10.1377/hblog20161102.057386/full/
Padula WV, McQueen RB. Expanding the role of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: reauthorization and facilitating value assessments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:757–759.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2019 National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Report. February 2021. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr19/
Lund JL, Yabroff KR, Ibuka Y, et al. Inventory of data sources for estimating health care costs in the United States. Med Care. 2009;47(7 suppl 1):S127–S142.
Biden JR Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Linkage Activities. February 14, 2022. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-linkage/index.htm
National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://naccdata.org/
National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare Linked Data Resource. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/
Warren JL, Benner S, Stevens J, et al. Development and evaluation of a process to link cancer patients in the SEER registries to national Medicaid enrollment data. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2020;2020:89–95.
Medicare and Medicaid Resource Information Center (MedRIC). Medicare and Medicaid Resource Information Center. Accessed September 15, 2022. https://www.medric.info/
115th Congress. Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018; Pub. L. No. 115-435, H.R. 4174; 2019.
Nyman JA. Cost recommendations in the Second Edition of Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: a review. MDM Policy Pract. 2018;3:2381468318765162.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.