Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 May 1;7(5):463-466. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.113.
Vidhi Thakkar and Terrence Sullivan have done a careful and thought-provoking job in trying to establish comparable estimates of public spending on health services and policy research (HSPR) in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Their main recommendation is a call for an international collaboration to develop common terms and categories of HSPR. This paper raises two additional questions that have an international comparative dimension: There is little doubt that public spending on HSPR represents more than the "tip of the iceberg," but how much more? And how do the countries fare on the uptake of HSPR by decision-makers? I have long speculated that probably as much or more is spent by provincial/territorial governments, regional health authorities, hospitals and other agencies on HSPR activities carried out by consultants in Canada than by the federal, provincial/territorial granting agencies. Support for this contention is provided in a paper by Penno and Gauld on spending on external consultancies by New Zealand's District Health Boards (DHBs). Their estimate of the amount spent on consultancies in 2014/15 represents 80% of the amount spent on research by the Health Research Council of New Zealand in 2015. In terms of the uptake of research Jonathan Lomas pioneered the concept of linking researchers with decisionmakers when he became the founding Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) in 1997. An early assessment was promising, and it would be interesting to know if other countries have tried this. Most assessments of research uptake and impact are short-term in nature. It might be insightful to assess HSPR developments over the long term, such as prospective reimbursement through diagnosis related groups (DRGs) that has been evolving internationally for more 40+ years. In the short term the prospects for a major infusion of funding in HSPR in Canada are not promising, although there have been welcome investments in the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (formerly CHSRF).
维迪·塔卡和特伦斯·沙利文在试图确定加拿大、英国和美国的卫生服务和政策研究(HSPR)公共支出的可比估计数方面做了一项细致而发人深省的工作。他们的主要建议是呼吁开展国际合作,制定 HSPR 的共同术语和类别。本文提出了另外两个具有国际比较维度的问题:毫无疑问,HSPR 的公共支出不仅仅是“冰山一角”,但究竟多了多少?以及各国在决策者对 HSPR 的接受程度如何?我长期以来一直推测,在加拿大,省级/地区政府、地区卫生当局、医院和其他机构可能在 HSPR 活动方面的支出与联邦、省级/地区拨款机构一样多,甚至更多。彭诺和高尔德关于新西兰地区卫生委员会(DHBs)外部咨询支出的一篇论文为这一论点提供了支持。他们对 2014/15 年咨询支出的估计相当于新西兰健康研究理事会 2015 年研究支出的 80%。就研究的采用而言,乔纳森·洛马斯在成为加拿大卫生服务研究基金会(CHSRF)的创始首席执行官(CEO)时,率先提出了将研究人员与决策者联系起来的概念。早期的评估是有希望的,如果其他国家也尝试过,那将很有趣。大多数研究采用和影响的评估都是短期的。评估 HSPR 的长期发展可能会有启发性,例如通过国际上已经发展了 40 多年的与诊断相关的分组(DRGs)进行前瞻性报销。在短期内,加拿大 HSPR 获得大量资金的前景并不乐观,尽管加拿大医疗保健改进基金会(前身为 CHSRF)已经进行了一些受欢迎的投资。