Lack of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses to Address Healthy People 2020 Priority Areas
Bibliographic Data
Objectives. To examine the extent to which recently published cost-utility analyses (cost-effectiveness analyses using quality-adjusted life-years to measure health benefits) have covered the leading health concerns in the US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2020 report. Methods. We examined data in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, a database containing 5000 published cost-utility analyses published in the MEDLINE literature through 2014. We focused on US-based cost-utility analyses published from 2011 through 2014 (n = 687). Two reviewers scanned abstracts and met for a consensus on categorization of cost-utility analyses that addressed the specific priorities listed in the 12 Healthy People 2020 areas (n = 120). Results. Although 7.3% of recently published cost-utility analyses addressed key clinical preventive services, only about 2% of recently published cost-utility analyses covered each of the following Healthy People 2020 topics: reproductive and sexual health, nutrition/physical activity/obesity, maternal and infant health, and tobacco. Fewer than 1% addressed priorities such as injuries and violence, mental health or substance abuse, environmental quality, and oral health. Conclusions. Few cost-utility analyses have addressed Healthy People 2020 priority areas
Cost effectiveness · Cost–benefit analysis · Environmental health · MEDLINE · Mental health · Psychiatry · Public health · Risk analysis (engineering) · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Nursing · Gerontology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |