Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes

BMC Medicine

Jonathan Grant²  Alexandra Pollitt¹  Stephen Hanney³  Susan Guthrie¹  Martin Buxton³  Matthew Glover³ 

[1] RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, UK;King’s Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London WC2R 2LA, UK;Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

关键词: Research payback;    Time lags;    Rate of return;    Value of health;    Medical research charities;    Cancer;    QALYs;    Medical research investment;   

Others  :  840896
DOI  :  10.1186/1741-7015-12-99

 received in 2014-03-06, accepted in 2014-05-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes.

Methods

To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters.

Results

In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Glover et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Editorial: Unknown quantities. Nature 2010, 465:665-666.
• [2]Buxton M, Hanney S, Jones T: Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bull World Health Organ 2004, 82:733-739.
• [3]Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe: Medical Research: What’s it Worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. London: UK Evaluation Forum; 2008. [http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@sitestudioobjects/documents/web_document/wtx052110.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [4]Mushkin S: Biomedical Research: Costs and Benefits. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; 1979.
• [5]Drummond MF, Davies LM, Ferris FL: Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: the diabetic retinopathy study. Soc Sci Med 1992, 34:973-981.
• [6]Funding First: Exceptional Returns: The Economic Value of America’s Investment in Medical Research. New York: Lasker Foundation; 2000. [http://www.laskerfoundation.org/media/pdf/exceptional.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [7]Murphy KM, Topel R: The economic value of medical research. New York: Lasker Foundation; 1998. [http://www.laskerfoundation.org/pdf/economicvalue.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2104]
• [8]Access Economics: Exceptional Returns: The Value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia. Canberra: Access Economics; 2003. [http://www.asmr.org.au/Except.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [9]Access Economics: Exceptional Returns: The Value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia II. Canberra: Access Economics; 2008. [http://www.asmr.org.au/ExceptII08.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [10]Deloitte Access Economics: Returns on NHMRC funded Research and Development. Canberra: Deloitte Access Economics; 2011. [http://www.asmr.org.au/NHMRCReturns.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [11]Litchenberg FR: The expanding pharmaceutical arsenal in the war on cancer. NBER Working Paper Series 2004. Paper No. w10328
• [12]Sun EC, Jena AP, Lakdawalla DN, Reyes CM, Philipson TJ, Goldman DP: An economic evaluation of the war on cancer. NBER Working Paper Series 2009. Paper No. 15574
• [13]Lakdawalla DN, Sun EC, Jena AB, Reyes CM, Goldman DP, Philipson TJ: An economic evaluation of the war on cancer. J Health Econ 2010, 29:333-346.
• [14]Buxton M, Hanney S: How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996, 1:35-43.
• [15]Hanney S, Mugford M, Grant J, Buxton M: Assessing the benefits of health research: lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:937-947.
• [16]Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology 2005, 44:1145-1156.
• [17]Wooding S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Buxton M, Grant J: Project Retrosight: Understanding the Returns from Cardiovascular and Stroke Research. Cambridge: RAND Europe; 2011. [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1079.html webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [18]Wooding S, Pollitt A, Castle-Clarke S, Cochrane G, Diepeveen S, Guthrie S, Hortvitz-Lennon M, Larivière V, Ni Chonaill S, O’Brien C, Olmsted S, Schultz D, Winpenny E, Pincus HA, Grant J: Mental Health Retrosight. Understanding the Returns from Research. (lessons from schizophrenia). Policy Report. Cambridge: RAND Europe; 2013. [http://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/mental-health-retrosight.html webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [19]Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS: Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet 2006, 367:1319-1327.
• [20]Cancer Research UK: Medical Research and the Spending Review. 2010. [http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/cr_048533.pdf webcite, Accessed: 20 May 2012]
• [21]Association of Medical Research Charities: Written Submission to the Comprehensive Spending Review. 2010. [http://www.amrc.org.uk/publications/submission-department-business-innovation-and-skills-part-comprehensive-spending-review webcite. Accessed: January 2014]
• [22]Academy of Medical Sciences: Initial Response to the Spending Review Consultation. 2010. [http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/download.php?file=/images/publication/128393883472.pdf webcite, Accessed: May 2012]
• [23]European Medical Research Councils: White Paper II: A Stronger Biomedical Research for a Better European Future. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation; 2011.
• [24]Guthrie S, Grant J, Hanney S, Pollitt A: Investigating time lags and attribution in the translation of cancer research: A case study approach. Cambridge: RAND Europe; 2014.
• [25]Dawson G, Lucocq B, Cottrell R, Lewison G: Mapping the Landscape: National Biomedical Research Outputs 1988–95. London: Wellcome Trust; 1998.
• [26]Wellcome Trust: Putting NHS Research on the Map: An Analysis of Scientific Publications in England, 1990–97. London: Wellcome Trust; 2001.
• [27]Capewell S, Critchley J, Unal B: IMPACT: a Validated, Comprehensive Coronary Heart Disease Model. Overview and Technical Appendices. Liverpool: University of Liverpool; 2007.
• [28]CRUK statistics [http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ webcite, Accessed December 2013]
• [29]ONS statistics, MB1 series no 32 [http://www.ons.gov.uk webcite, Accessed December 2013]
• [30]Karim-Kos HE, de Vries E, Soerjomataram I, Lemmens V, Siesling S, Coebergh JWW: Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:1345-1389.
• [31]National Cancer Intelligence Network Incidence Stomach Cancer Engl 1998–2007. [http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/incidence_of_stomach_cancer_in_england webcite Accessed: February 2014]
• [32]Bine Kjøller B, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Sørensen M, Frederiksen K, Christensen J, Tjønneland A, Overvad K, Chapelon FC, Nagel G, Chang-Claude J, Bergmann MM, Boeing H, Trichopoulos D, Trichopoulou A, Oikonomou E, Berrino F, Palli D, Tumino R, Vineis P, Panico S, Peeters PHM, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Kiemeney L, Gram IT, Braaten T, Lund E, Gonzalez CA, Berglund G, Allen N, Roddam A, et al.: Tobacco smoke and bladder cancer—in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Cancer 2006, 119:2412-2416.
• [33]Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012, 380:1778-1786.
• [34]Libby G, Brewster DH, McClements PL, Carey FA, Black RJ, Birrell J, Fraser CG, Steele RJC: The impact of population-based faecal occult blood test screening on colorectal cancer mortality: a matched cohort study. Br J Cancer 2012, 107:255-259.
• [35]Canfell K, Freddy S, Beral V: Cervical cancer in Australia and the United Kingdom: comparison of screening policy and uptake, and cancer incidence and mortality. Med J Aust 2006, 185:482.
• [36]CancerStats – Survival [http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/downloads/Product/CS_CS_SURVIVAL.pdf webcite, Accessed: December 2013]
• [37]Cancer survival in England - patients diagnosed 2005–2009 and followed up to 2010 [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cancer-unit/cancer-survival/2005-2009--followed-up-to-2010/stb-cancer-survival--2005-09-and-followed-up-to-2010.html webcite. Accessed December 2013]
• [38]Godfrey C, Shezad A, Parrott S, Pickett K: Economic model of adult smoking related costs and consequences for England, October 2010 (Revised April 2011). York: Public Health Research Consortium Project Report; 2011. [http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_A4-06_Final_Report.pdf webcite]
• [39]Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S: UK population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion paper 182. York: University of York; 1999. [http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20172.pdf webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [40]Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N: Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening, an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8:1-78. Table 21
• [41]Whyte S, Chilcott J, Cooper K, Essat M, Stevens J, Wong R, Kalita N: Reappraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening. Full report for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Sheffield: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011. Table 4.2.1
• [42]Pharoah PD, Sewell B, Fitzsimmons D, Bennett HS, Pashayan N: Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model. BMJ 2013, 346:f2618.
• [43]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Colorectal Cancer: The Diagnosis and Management of Colorectal Cancer. CG 131. 2011. [http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG131 webcite, Accessed: December 2013]
• [44]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Early and Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. CG 80. 2009. [http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG80 webcite, Accessed: December 2013]
• [45]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. CG 81. 2009. [http://publications.nice.org.uk/advanced-breast-cancer-cg81 webcite, Accessed: December 2013]
• [46]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. CG58. 2008. [http://publications.nice.org.uk/prostate-cancer-cg58 webcite, Accessed: December 2013]
• [47]Health and Social Care Information Centre England: Statistics on Smoking; 2012. Table 2.2 [http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB07019/smok-eng-2012-rep.pdf webcite, Accessed: February 2014]
• [48]Hospital Episodes Statistics [http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hes webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [49]Health and Social Care information Centre [http://www.hscic.gov.uk/ webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [50]PSSRU, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2012 [http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2012/ webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [51]Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008 [http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2008.jsp webcite, Accessed February 2014]
• [52]Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9 webcite, Accessed: January 2014]
• [53]World Health Organisation: Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics for Health. 2001. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2001/924154550x.pdf webcite, Accessed: May 2014]
• [54]Grant J, Cottrell R, Cluzeau F, Fawcett G: Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study. BMJ 2000, 320:1107-1111.
• [55]Murray CJL, Richards MA, Newton JN, Fenton KA, Anderson HR, Atkinson C, Bennett D, Bernabé E, Blencowe H, Bourne R, Braithwaite T, Brayne C, Bruce NG, Brugha TS, Burney P, Dherani M, Dolk H, Edmond K, Ezzati M, Flaxman AD, Fleming TD, Freedman G, Gunnell D, Hay RJ, Hutchings SJ, Ohno SL, Lozano R, Lyons RA, Marcenes W, Naghavi M, et al.: UK health performance: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013, 381:997-1020.
• [56]Department of Health: An Audit of the Impact of the Department of Health’s Regulations upon Businesses. Final Report. September 2013. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-of-health-regulations-impact-on-business webcite. Accessed: January 2014]
• [57]The National Cancer Research Institute [http://www.ncri.org.uk webcite]
• [58]The Centre for Science and Technology Studies [http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/ webcite]
• [59]Her Majesties Treasury GDP data [http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_gdp_fig.htm webcite]
• [60]The National Institute of Health price index [http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/gbiPriceIndexes.html webcite]