Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal

Document Type : Perspective

Authors

Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

Health services and policy research (HSPR) represent a multidisciplinary field which integrates knowledge from health economics, health policy, health technology assessment, epidemiology, political science among other fields, to evaluate decisions in health service delivery. Health service decisions are informed by evidence at the clinical, organizational, and policy level, levels with distinct, managerial drivers. HSPR has an evolving discourse spanning knowledge translation, linkage and exchange between research and decision-maker partners and more recently, implementation science and learning health systems. Local context is important for HSPR and is important in advancing health reform practice. The amounts and configuration of national investment in this field remain important considerations which reflect priority investment areas. The priorities set within this field or research may have greater or lesser effects and promise with respect to modernizing health services in pursuit of better value and better population outcomes. Within Canada an asset map for HSPR was published by the national HSPR research institute. Having estimated publiclyfunded research spending in Canada, we sought identify best available comparable estimates from the United States and the United Kingdom. Investments from industry and charitable organizations were not included in these numbers. This commentary explores spending by the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom on HSPR as a fraction of total public spending on health and the importance of these respective investments in advancing health service performance. Proposals are offered on the merits of common nomenclature and accounting for areas of investigation in pursuit of some comparable way of assessing priority HSPR investments and suggestions for earmarking such investments to total investment in health services spending.

Highlights

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • Health Services Research Spending and Healthcare System Impact; Comment on “Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Making Research Matter; Comment on “Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Public Spending on Health Services and Policy Research in Canada: A Reflection on Thakkar and Sullivan; Comment on “Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal”

          Abstract | PDF

 

Authors’ Response to the Commentaries

  • Eating or Feeding Our Young: A Response to Recent Commentaries

          Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. IHSPR. Total Health Services and Policy Research Investments - Mapping Our Assets in Canada (2007-2011). http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49711.html. Published 2016.
  2. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Health services research a historical perspective https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/vplayer?pid=nlm:nlmuid-100964117-vid. Published 2000.
  3. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 2003;81(3):363-388.
  4. Sullivan & Associates. A Pan-Canadian Vision and Strategy for Health Services and Policy Research. Phase 1: Building the Foundation. Canadian Institute for Health Research; January 2014.
  5. Tamblyn R, McMahon M, Girard N, Drake E, Nadigel J, Gaudreau K. Health services and policy research in the first decade at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ Open. 2016;4(2):E213-E221.
  6. Olsen LA, Aisner D, McGinnis JM. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences; 2007.
  7. Canadian Institute for Health Research. IHSPR Strategic research priorities. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/27284.html. Published 2016.
  8. Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R. How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole‐scale transformation in London. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):391-416.
  9. UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2009/10. London: UKCRC; 2012.
  10. Academy Health. Federal funding for health services research 2010-2016. http://www.academyhealth.org/files/HSR Federal Funding Chart FY 2016.pdf. 
  11. National Institutes of Health. Estimates of Funding for Various Research Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC): U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2016. https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
  12. World Bank. World Bank Total Population Tables. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Published 2016.
  13. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. The Affordable Care Act is Working. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/fact-sheets/aca-is-working/index.html. Published 2016.
  14. Canadian Institute for Health Research. CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR). Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html. Published 2016.
  15. Freeman T. Using performance indicators to improve health care quality in the public sector: a review of the literature. Health Serv Manag Res. 2002;15(2):126-137.
  16. Braithwaite J, Travaglia JF. An overview of clinical governance policies, practices and initiatives. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(1):10-22.
  17. Bevan G, Hood C. Health policy: Have targets improved performance in the English NHS? BMJ. 2006:332(7538):419-422. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.419
  18. European Commission. TOPIC : Towards an ERA-NET for building sustainable and resilient health system models.. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sc1-hco-06-2016.html. Published 2016.
  19. Peters K, Himsworth R. Welcoming the Culyer report. BMJ. 1994;309(6957):751.
  20. Jha A, Epstein, A. Hospital Governance and the Quality of Care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(1):182-187. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0297
  21. Mery G, Dobrow MJ, Baker GR, et al. Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7(2):e012431. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012431

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 February 2017
  • Revise Date: 27 March 2017
  • Accept Date: 28 March 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 November 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics