From free to free market: cost recovery in federally funded clinical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McCammon MG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3523334 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
From free to free market: cost recovery in federally funded clinical research.
McCammon Margaret G MG Fogg Thomas T TT Jacobsen Lynda L Roache John J Sampson Royce R Bower Cynthia L CL
Science translational medicine 20120701 141
In a climate of increased expectation for the translation of research, academic clinical research units are looking at new ways to streamline their operation and maintain effective translational support services. Clinical research, although undeniably expensive, is an essential step in the translation of any medical breakthrough, and as a result, many academic clinical research units are actively looking to expand their clinical services despite financial pressures. We examine some of the hybrid ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn 2012, CDC launched the first federally funded national mass media antismoking campaign. The Tips From Former Smokers (Tips) campaign resulted in a 12% relative increase in population-level quit attempts.PurposeCost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in 2013 to evaluate Tips from a funding agency's perspective.MethodsEstimates of sustained cessations; premature deaths averted; undiscounted life years (LYs) saved; and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by Tips were estimated.ResultsTips saved about 179,099 QALYs and prevented 17,109 premature deaths in the U.S. With the campaign cost of roughly $48 million, Tips spent approximately $480 per quitter, $2,819 per premature death averted, $393 per LY saved, and $268 per QALY gained.ConclusionsTips was not only successful at reducing smoking-attributable morbidity and mortality but also was a highly cost-effective mass media intervention.
| S-EPMC4603744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics.Part A and B fee-for-service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC.We modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects.Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Total median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs.HCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients.
| S-EPMC4799905 | biostudies-other
Project description:The US is experiencing a severe shortage of underrepresented biomedical researchers. The purpose of this paper is to present two case examples of cancer research mentoring programs for underrepresented biomedical sciences students. The first case example is a National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) P20 grant titled "South Carolina Cancer Disparities Research Center (SC CaDRe)" Training Program, contributing to an increase in the number of underrepresented students applying to graduate school by employing a triple-level mentoring strategy. Since 2011, three undergraduate and four graduate students have participated in the P20 SC CaDRe program. One graduate student published a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Two graduate students (50 %) have completed their master's degrees, and the other two graduate students will receive their degrees in spring 2015. Two undergraduate students (67 %) are enrolled in graduate or professional school (grad./prof. school), and the other graduate student is completing her final year of college. The second case example is a prostate cancer-focused Department of Defense grant titled "The SC Collaborative Undergraduate HBCU Student Summer Training Program," providing 24 students training since 2009. Additionally, 47 students made scientific presentations, and two students have published peer-reviewed scientific papers. All 24 students took a GRE test preparation course; 15 (63 %) have applied to graduate school, and 11 of them (73 %) are enrolled in grad./prof. school. Thirteen remaining students (54 %) are applying to grad./prof. school. Leveraged funding provided research-training opportunities to an additional 201 National Conference on Health Disparities Student Forum participants and to 937 Ernest E. Just Research Symposium participants at the Medical University of South Carolina.
| S-EPMC9122347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDuring the 2018-2019 influenza season, vaccination coverage among U.S. children was 62.6%. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of influenza vaccinations among pediatric patients seen in U.S. health centers, and to explore potential disparities in vaccination coverage among subpopulations. Funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, these health centers provide primary and preventive care to underserved and vulnerable individuals and families in order to reduce health disparities based on economic, geographic, or cultural barriers.MethodsCross-sectional data, analyzed in 2019, came from the most recent waves of the Health Center Patient Survey (2009, 2014). The sample consisted of children ages 2-17 years receiving care from HRSA-funded health centers. The outcome of interest was self- or parent-reported receipt of influenza vaccine in the past year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence rate ratios for the association between demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty level, urban/rural residence, geographic region), health-related variables (receipt of well-child check-up, asthma diagnosis), and influenza vaccination.ResultsInfluenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients increased from 46.6% in 2009 to 67.8% in 2014. In the adjusted model for 2014, there were few statistically significant differences in vaccination coverage among subpopulation groups, however American Indian/Alaska Native children had 31% increased vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White children (aPRR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60) and children living in the South had 26% decreased vaccination coverage compared with those living in the Northeast (aPRR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93).ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients in 2014 exceeded the national average (as of 2018-2019), and few differences were found among at-risk subpopulations. HRSA-funded health centers are well-positioned to further increase the vaccination rate among children living in underserved communities.
| S-EPMC7378489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the Health Resources and Services Administration's Quality Improvement Award (QIA) program, award patterns, and early lessons learned.Study setting1413 health centers were eligible for QIA from 2014 to 2018.Study designWe assessed cumulative QIA funding earned and modified funding excluding payments for per-patient bonuses, electronic health record (EHR) use, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) accreditation, and health information technology. We compared health centers on rural/urban location, PCMH accreditation, EHR reporting, and size.Data collectionOrganizational and quality measures are reported in the Uniform Data System, QIA program data.Principal findingsAverage cumulative funding was higher for health centers that were not rural (USD 380,387 [± USD 233,467] vs. USD 303,526 [± USD 164,272]), had PCMH accreditation (USD 401,675 [± USD 218,246] vs. USD 250,784 [± USD 144,404]), used their EHR for quality reporting (USD 374,214 (± USD 222,866) vs. USD 331,150 (± USD 198,689)), and were large (USD 435,473 (± USD 238,193) vs. USD 270,681 (± USD 114,484) an USD 231,917 (± USD 97,847) for small and medium centers, respectively). There were similar patterns, with smaller differences, for average modified payments.ConclusionsQIA is an important feasible initiative to introduce value-based payment principles to health centers. Early lessons for program design include announcing award criteria in advance and focusing on a smaller number of priority targets.
| S-EPMC9441276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNew federal policies along with rapid growth in data generation, storage, and analysis tools are together driving scientific data sharing in the United States. At the same, triangulating human research data from diverse sources can also create situations where data are used for future research in ways that individuals and communities may consider objectionable. Institutional gatekeepers, namely, signing officials (SOs), are therefore at the helm of compliant management and sharing of human data for research. Of those with data governance responsibilities, SOs most often serve as signatories for investigators who deposit, access, and share research data between institutions. Although SOs play important leadership roles in compliant data sharing, we know surprisingly little about their scope of work, roles, and oversight responsibilities.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe existing institutional policies and practices of US SOs who manage human genomic data access, as well as how these may change in the wake of new Data Management and Sharing requirements for National Institutes of Health-funded research in the United States.MethodsWe administered an anonymous survey to institutional SOs recruited from biomedical research institutions across the United States. Survey items probed where data generated from extramurally funded research are deposited, how researchers outside the institution access these data, and what happens to these data after extramural funding ends.ResultsIn total, 56 institutional SOs participated in the survey. We found that SOs frequently approve duplicate data deposits and impose stricter access controls when data use limitations are unclear or unspecified. In addition, 21% (n=12) of SOs knew where data from federally funded projects are deposited after project funding sunsets. As a consequence, most investigators deposit their scientific data into "a National Institutes of Health-funded repository" to meet the Data Management and Sharing requirements but also within the "institution's own repository" or a third-party repository.ConclusionsOur findings inform 5 policy recommendations and best practices for US SOs to improve coordination and develop comprehensive and consistent data governance policies that balance the need for scientific progress with effective human data protections.
| S-EPMC10993121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme funded reports.Study designRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe cohort included 311 NIHR HTA Programme funded reports publishing in HTA in the period 1 January 2007-31 December 2012. The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system independently identified the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA publications and non-NIHR HTA publications. The MORE system involves over 4000 physicians rating publications on a scale of relevance (the extent to which articles are relevant to practice) and a scale of newsworthiness (the extent to which articles contain news or something clinicians are unlikely to know).Main outcome measuresThe proportion of reports published in HTA meeting MORE inclusion criteria and mean average relevance and newsworthiness ratings were calculated and compared with publications from the same studies publishing outside HTA and non-NIHR HTA funded publications.Results286/311 (92.0%) of NIHR HTA reports were assessed by MORE, of which 192 (67.1%) passed MORE criteria. The average clinical relevance rating for NIHR HTA reports was 5.48, statistically higher than the 5.32 rating for non-NIHR HTA publications (mean difference=0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, p=0.01). Average newsworthiness ratings were similar between NIHR HTA reports and non-NIHR HTA publications (4.75 and 4.70, respectively; mean difference=0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07, p=0.402). NIHR HTA-funded original research reports were statistically higher for newsworthiness than reviews (5.05 compared with 4.64) (mean difference=0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64, p=0.001).ConclusionsFunding research of clinical relevance is important in maximising the value of research investment. The NIHR HTA Programme is successful in funding projects that generate outputs of clinical relevance.
| S-EPMC4024580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.
| S-EPMC7055651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.MethodsWe systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR < 1 implies that the experimental intervention is relatively more favorable in trials with industry funding compared with trials without industry funding. For RCTs included in the ROR analysis, we also examined the conclusions of their abstract.ResultsAcross 67 topics with 568 RCTs, 88 were funded by industry and another 73 had both industry and non-profit funding. Across 33 topics with binary outcomes, the sROR was 1.10 [95% CI (0.96-1.26), I2 = 1%]. Conclusions were not significantly more commonly unfavorable for the experimental arm interventions in industry-funded trials (21.3%) compared with trials without industry funding (18.2%).ConclusionIndustry-funded RCTs are the minority in intensive care. We found no evidence that industry-funded trials in intensive care yield more favorable results or are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions.
| S-EPMC6182357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn May 2019, new federal regulations regarding Title X funding were introduced. There has been no formal evaluation of the impact of this regulatory shift as it pertains to minors' access to services.ObjectiveTo explore the geography of federally funded clinics providing confidential reproductive care to adolescents following changes to Title X funding regulations.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used a population-based sample of US Census tracts. All clinics participating in the Title X program in August 2018 and August 2020 were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from January to December 2021.ExposuresPeriod, defined as before and after the 2019 Title X rule change (August 2018 and August 2020, respectively).Main outcomes and measuresUS Census tracts were evaluated for the availability of confidential family planning care within a 30-minute drive, according to the presence of a Title X clinic or a permissive state law. Census tracts in which minors lost access to confidential care after the rule change were characterized in terms of demographic characteristics. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between Census tract characteristics and the odds of losing vs maintaining access to legally protected confidential minor services.ResultsThe study included 72 620 Census tracts, accounting for approximately 324 697 728 US residents (99.96% of the population). After the Title X rule change, 1743 clinics in the Title X program left (39.0%) and minors living in 6299 Census tracts (8.7%) lost access to confidential family planning care, corresponding to an estimated 933 649 youth aged 15 to 17 years. Minors living in rural Census tracts (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.36) and those in the Midwest (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 2.24-2.60) had higher odds of losing access to care. Minors living in Census tracts with a higher Social Vulnerability Index (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.55), a larger proportion of Black individuals (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.37), and/or a larger proportion of Hispanic individuals (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49) were less likely to lose access to care.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that there were losses in access to legally protected confidential reproductive health services for youth after the 2019 Title X rule change. Although evidence-based Title X guidelines have since been reinstated, state laws that ensure adolescent confidentiality in obtaining family planning services may protect youth from future alterations to the Title X program.
| S-EPMC9206194 | biostudies-literature