The Return on Investment in Health Care: From 1980 to 2000

Abstract

The value of improved health in the US population in 2000 compared with 1980 significantly outweighs the additional health-care expenditures in 2000 compared with 1980.

A Catalyst for Change: The European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights

“…Cancer diagnostics (imaging, biomarkers) and therapies (surgery, radiation, new medicines and devices) have led to statistically significant increases in 1-year and 5-year survival rates and improvements in cancer outcomes, with significant qualityadjusted benefit achieved at a fraction of the economic cost of increased morbidity, mortality, and loss of productive life-years [41][42][43][44][45][46]. A clear example of this progress is breast cancer, for which more effective management by innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches has been accompanied by approximately a fivefold increase in return on investment [42,45]. In France, it is estimated that diagnostic and therapeutic innovation has contributed to a significant decline in cancer mortality rates in the period 2002-2006 [42, 44, 46].…”

A Population-Based Study Comparing Child (0-4) and Adult (55-74) Mortality, GDP-Expenditure-on- Health and Relative Poverty in the UK and Developed Countries 1989-2014. Some Challenging Outcomes

“…This might have been infl uenced by the law of diminishing returns, as previously the UK had the third highest AMR so in countries with initially high baseline rates it is easier to make proportionately bigger reductions following new investment, whereas those with initially lower rates is harder to achieve comparable reductions over the same time [28][29][30]. Only country-specifi c research can explain these individual results.…”

Utilization of health technologies—Do not look where there is a light; shine your light where there is a need to look!

“…The key role of innovative health technologies in improving health should not, however, be underestimated [1,12,13]. Even if the technology per se does not offer the maximal expected benefit, the innovation process behind it is imperative to the study of health improvement, as is shown by the early history of medicine [11,15].…”

“…Innovative health technologies attract much attention as they encompass a promise for better health, which is highlighted by their manufacturers [11][12][13]: sick people are likely to cling to the chance of improving their condition; healthy people are not only keen to assist the ill, but also are afraid of becoming ill [6,14], and probably are impressed by the glow that is projected over the promising technology; healthcare professionals might be impressed by the chance to improve their patients' state of health, together with boosting their own prestige and income that follow adoption of the apparent scientific innovation [11]. All of these factors could potentially affect decision makers, who face the tremendous challenge of allocating scarce resources for health technologies, to provide better health for a reasonable price.…”