Can Economic Model Transparency Improve Provider Interpretation of Cost-effectiveness Analysis? Evaluating Tradeoffs Presented by the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9099990
AutoresWilliam V Padula (Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, autor de correspondencia), R Brett McQueen (0000-0002-4302-2678, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus), Peter J Pronovost (0000-0002-9740-3775, Departments of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine and Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD)
Año2017
Volumen55
Número11
Páginas909-911
Fecha de publicación2017-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
EditorialOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/mlr.0000000000000810
PMID29028753
OpenAlexW2762428528
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas7

The Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine convened on December 7, 2016 at the National Academy of Medicine to disseminate their recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Following its summary, panel proceedings included lengthy discussions including the field’s struggle to disseminate findings efficiently through peer-reviewed literature to target audiences. With editors of several medical and outcomes research journals in attendance, there was consensus that findings of cost-effectiveness analyses do not effectively reach other researchers or health care providers. The audience members suggested several solutions including providing additional training to clinicians in cost-effectiveness research and requiring that cost-effectiveness models are made publicly available. However, there remains the questions of whether making economic modelers’ work open-access through journals is fair under the defense that these models remain one’s own intellectual property, or whether journals can properly manage the peer-review process specifically for cost-effectiveness analyses. In this article, we elaborate on these issues and provide some suggested solutions that may increase the dissemination and application of cost-effectiveness literature to reach its intended audiences and ultimately benefit the patient. Ultimately, it is our combined view as economic modelers and clinicians that cost-effectiveness results need to reach the clinician to improve the efficiency of medical practice, but that open-access models do not improve clinician access or interpretation of the economics of medicine

Attendance · Cost effectiveness · Dissemination · Health care · Interpretation (philosophy) · Political science · Public relations · Risk analysis (engineering) · Transparency (behavior) · Computer Science · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews