New Evidence on the Allocation of NIH Funds across Diseases

被引:35
作者
Sampat, Bhaven N. [1 ]
Buterbaugh, Kristin [2 ]
Perl, Marcel [2 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] Mt Sinai Sch Med, New York, NY USA
关键词
National Institutes of Health (U.S); resource allocation; INSTITUTES-OF-HEALTH; BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH; BURDEN;
D O I
10.1111/milq.12005
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Context The responsiveness of NIH (National Institutes of Health) funding to disease burden is a long-standing issue of policy interest. Previous analyses of this issue have been hindered by data constraints, have not specified channels through which the NIH funding process could be responsive to disease considerations, and have not examined differences across NIH institutes and centers. Methods We collected data from the NIH's new RCDC (Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization) database on funding for 107 diseases in 2008 and linked these to data on deaths and hospitalizations for these diseases. We used RCDC data and information from another NIH databaseRePORTERto determine institute-specific funding for these diseases and also funding by award type. We used these data to examine the overall responsiveness of NIH funding to disease burden, within-institute responsiveness, and the responsiveness of different types of NIH awards. Findings Overall, we found a strong and statistically significant relationship between NIH funding and deaths and hospitalizations associated with a disease. We detected some evidence that more applied grant mechanismsin particular, funding for clinical trialsare more responsive than other types of funding. We also found evidence of differences across institutes in their extent of responsiveness. Conclusions Overall, the data suggest that NIH funding is responsive to the two measures of disease burden. More applied grant mechanisms also may serve as safety valves in the allocation process, allowing Congress, disease advocacy groups, and others to apply pressure to address particular health priorities in a more fine-grained way than is possible through investigator-initiated basic research grants alone.
引用
收藏
页码:163 / 185
页数:23
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], RES PORTF ONL REP TO
[2]  
Bowker G. C., 2008, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences
[3]   History of information infrastructures: The case of the international classification of diseases [J].
Bowker, GC .
INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, 1996, 32 (01) :49-61
[4]   Shaping biomedical research priorities: The case of the National Institutes of Health [J].
Callahan, D .
HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 1999, 7 (02) :115-129
[5]   CONFLICTING AGENDAS SHAPE NIH [J].
COHEN, J .
SCIENCE, 1993, 261 (5129) :1674-1679
[6]  
Fuchs V.R., 1975, Who shall live? Health, economics, and social choice
[7]   NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease [J].
Gillum, Leslie A. ;
Gouveia, Christopher ;
Dorsey, E. Ray ;
Pletcher, Mark ;
Mathers, Colin D. ;
McCulloch, Charles E. ;
Johnston, S. Claiborne .
PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (02)
[8]   HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, oh my: Similarities and differences in summary measures of population health [J].
Gold, MR ;
Stevenson, D ;
Fryback, DG .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2002, 23 :115-134
[9]   The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease [J].
Gross, CP ;
Anderson, GF ;
Rowe, NR .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 340 (24) :1881-1887
[10]  
Hardin VictoriaA., 2012, AIDs at 30: A History