Should health research funding be proportional to the burden of disease

Dados Bibliográficos

ID7354237
AutoresJoseph Millum (0000-0003-0716-9880, University of St Andrews, autor correspondente)
Ano2022
Volume22
Fascículo1
Páginas76-99
Data de publicação2022-11-24
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPolitics Philosophy & Economics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1470-594X • E-ISSN: 1741-3060
EditoraSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1470594x221138729
OpenAlexW4309874693
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas6
Referências citadas31

Public funders of health research have been widely criticized on the grounds that their allocations of funding for disease-specific research do not reflect the relative burdens imposed by different diseases. For example, the US National Institutes of Health spends a much greater fraction of its budget on HIV/AIDS research and a much smaller fraction on migraine research than their relative contribution to the US burden of disease would suggest. Implicit in this criticism is a normative claim: Insofar as the scientific opportunities are equal, each patient merits research into their condition proportional to the burden of disease for which that condition is responsible. This claim—the proportional view—is widely accepted but has never been fully specified or defended. In this paper, I explain what is required to specify the view, attempt to do so in the most charitable way, and then critically evaluate its normative underpinnings. I conclude that a severity-weighted proportional view is defensible. I close by drawing out five key lessons of my analysis for health research priority-setting

Actuarial science · Criticism · Disease · Economics · Normative · Pathology · Political science · Positive economics · Public economics · Public health · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Healthcare Policy and Management · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology