Cargando…

Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity

OBJECTIVES: The UK government is proposing to cease cutting the local authority public health grant by reallocating part of the treatment budget to preventative activity. This study examines whether this proposal is evidenced based and, in particular, whether these resources are best reallocated to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martin, Stephen, Lomas, James, Claxton, Karl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33039987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036411
_version_ 1783592796692676608
author Martin, Stephen
Lomas, James
Claxton, Karl
author_facet Martin, Stephen
Lomas, James
Claxton, Karl
author_sort Martin, Stephen
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The UK government is proposing to cease cutting the local authority public health grant by reallocating part of the treatment budget to preventative activity. This study examines whether this proposal is evidenced based and, in particular, whether these resources are best reallocated to prevention, or whether this expenditure would generate more health gains if used for treatment. METHODS: Instrumental variable regression methods are applied to English local authority data on mortality, healthcare and public health expenditure to estimate the responsiveness of mortality to variations in healthcare and public health expenditure in 2013/14. Using a well-established method, these mortality results are converted to a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) basis, and this facilitates the estimation of the cost per QALY for both National Health Service (NHS) healthcare and local public health expenditure. RESULTS: Saving lives and improving the quality of life requires resources. Our estimates suggest that each additional QALY costs about £3800 from the local public health budget, and that each additional QALY from the NHS budget costs about £13 500. These estimates can be used to calculate the number of QALYs generated by a budget boost. If we err on the side of caution and use the most conservative estimates that we have, then an additional £1 billion spent on public health will generate 206 398 QALYs (95% CI 36 591 to 3 76 205 QALYs), and an additional £1 billion spent on healthcare will generate 67 060 QALYs (95% CI 21 487 to 112 633 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Additional public health expenditure is very productive of health and is more productive than additional NHS expenditure. However, both types of expenditure are more productive of health than the norms used by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£20 000–£30 000 per QALY) to judge whether new therapeutic technologies are suitable for adoption by the NHS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7549458
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75494582020-10-19 Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity Martin, Stephen Lomas, James Claxton, Karl BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVES: The UK government is proposing to cease cutting the local authority public health grant by reallocating part of the treatment budget to preventative activity. This study examines whether this proposal is evidenced based and, in particular, whether these resources are best reallocated to prevention, or whether this expenditure would generate more health gains if used for treatment. METHODS: Instrumental variable regression methods are applied to English local authority data on mortality, healthcare and public health expenditure to estimate the responsiveness of mortality to variations in healthcare and public health expenditure in 2013/14. Using a well-established method, these mortality results are converted to a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) basis, and this facilitates the estimation of the cost per QALY for both National Health Service (NHS) healthcare and local public health expenditure. RESULTS: Saving lives and improving the quality of life requires resources. Our estimates suggest that each additional QALY costs about £3800 from the local public health budget, and that each additional QALY from the NHS budget costs about £13 500. These estimates can be used to calculate the number of QALYs generated by a budget boost. If we err on the side of caution and use the most conservative estimates that we have, then an additional £1 billion spent on public health will generate 206 398 QALYs (95% CI 36 591 to 3 76 205 QALYs), and an additional £1 billion spent on healthcare will generate 67 060 QALYs (95% CI 21 487 to 112 633 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Additional public health expenditure is very productive of health and is more productive than additional NHS expenditure. However, both types of expenditure are more productive of health than the norms used by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£20 000–£30 000 per QALY) to judge whether new therapeutic technologies are suitable for adoption by the NHS. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7549458/ /pubmed/33039987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036411 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Economics
Martin, Stephen
Lomas, James
Claxton, Karl
Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title_full Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title_fullStr Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title_full_unstemmed Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title_short Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
title_sort is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? a cross-sectional study of the impact of english public health grant on mortality and morbidity
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33039987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036411
work_keys_str_mv AT martinstephen isanounceofpreventionworthapoundofcureacrosssectionalstudyoftheimpactofenglishpublichealthgrantonmortalityandmorbidity
AT lomasjames isanounceofpreventionworthapoundofcureacrosssectionalstudyoftheimpactofenglishpublichealthgrantonmortalityandmorbidity
AT claxtonkarl isanounceofpreventionworthapoundofcureacrosssectionalstudyoftheimpactofenglishpublichealthgrantonmortalityandmorbidity