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

Stephen Martin; James Richard Scott Lomas; University of York Grant

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

Stephen Martin, James Richard Scott Lomas, University of York Grant

Research output: Working paper › Discussion paper

Abstract

Most previous attempts to estimate the marginal productivity of English health care expenditure have employed instruments that rely on statistical tests alone for their justification. A new approach to instrumentation has proposed the use of ‘funding rule’ variables as instruments, which can be justified on theoretical grounds. We exploit the availability of a funding formula for local authority (LA) public health expenditure in England to investigate the relationship between such expenditure
and mortality. Although there have been many studies of the impact of specific health promotion activities on outcomes, we are not aware of any successful attempts to relate English public health expenditure to mortality. Moreover, by converting healthcare (treatment) expenditure to a local authority geography, we are also able to estimate an outcome specification that includes both treatment (healthcare) and prevention (public health) expenditure. This enables us to identify the relative contribution of both types of expenditure to reductions in mortality. Previously published work has linked effects on disease specific mortality to changes in quality-adjusted life years. We use
these estimates to report the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for both treatment and public health (prevention) expenditure.

Original language	English
Place of Publication	York, UK
Publisher	Centre for Health Economics, University of York
Number of pages	35
Publication status	Published - Jul 2019

Publication series

Name	CHE Research Paper
Publisher	Centre for Health Economics, University of York
No.	166

Access to Document

CHERP166_Impact_Public_Health_Mortality_MorbidityFinal published version, 2.22 MB

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP166_Impact_Public_Health_Mortality_Morbidity.pdf

Cite this

Martin, S., Lomas, J. R. S., & Grant, U. O. Y. (2019). 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. (CHE Research Paper; No. 166). Centre for Health Economics, University of York. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP166_Impact_Public_Health_Mortality_Morbidity.pdf

@techreport{76ee77bf85624ff382ef12f43fcefc54,

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",

abstract = "Most previous attempts to estimate the marginal productivity of English health care expenditure have employed instruments that rely on statistical tests alone for their justification. A new approach to instrumentation has proposed the use of {\textquoteleft}funding rule{\textquoteright} variables as instruments, which can be justified on theoretical grounds. We exploit the availability of a funding formula for local authority (LA) public health expenditure in England to investigate the relationship between such expenditureand mortality. Although there have been many studies of the impact of specific health promotion activities on outcomes, we are not aware of any successful attempts to relate English public health expenditure to mortality. Moreover, by converting healthcare (treatment) expenditure to a local authority geography, we are also able to estimate an outcome specification that includes both treatment (healthcare) and prevention (public health) expenditure. This enables us to identify the relative contribution of both types of expenditure to reductions in mortality. Previously published work has linked effects on disease specific mortality to changes in quality-adjusted life years. We usethese estimates to report the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for both treatment and public health (prevention) expenditure.",

author = "Stephen Martin and Lomas, {James Richard Scott} and Grant, {University of York}",

year = "2019",

month = jul,

language = "English",

series = "CHE Research Paper",

publisher = "Centre for Health Economics, University of York",

number = "166",

type = "WorkingPaper",

institution = "Centre for Health Economics, University of York",

}

Martin, S , Lomas, JRS & Grant, UOY 2019 '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' CHE Research Paper, no. 166, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. <https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP166_Impact_Public_Health_Mortality_Morbidity.pdf>

TY - UNPB

T1 - Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

T2 - A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity

AU - Martin, Stephen

AU - Lomas, James Richard Scott

AU - Grant, University of York

PY - 2019/7

Y1 - 2019/7

N2 - Most previous attempts to estimate the marginal productivity of English health care expenditure have employed instruments that rely on statistical tests alone for their justification. A new approach to instrumentation has proposed the use of ‘funding rule’ variables as instruments, which can be justified on theoretical grounds. We exploit the availability of a funding formula for local authority (LA) public health expenditure in England to investigate the relationship between such expenditureand mortality. Although there have been many studies of the impact of specific health promotion activities on outcomes, we are not aware of any successful attempts to relate English public health expenditure to mortality. Moreover, by converting healthcare (treatment) expenditure to a local authority geography, we are also able to estimate an outcome specification that includes both treatment (healthcare) and prevention (public health) expenditure. This enables us to identify the relative contribution of both types of expenditure to reductions in mortality. Previously published work has linked effects on disease specific mortality to changes in quality-adjusted life years. We usethese estimates to report the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for both treatment and public health (prevention) expenditure.

AB - Most previous attempts to estimate the marginal productivity of English health care expenditure have employed instruments that rely on statistical tests alone for their justification. A new approach to instrumentation has proposed the use of ‘funding rule’ variables as instruments, which can be justified on theoretical grounds. We exploit the availability of a funding formula for local authority (LA) public health expenditure in England to investigate the relationship between such expenditureand mortality. Although there have been many studies of the impact of specific health promotion activities on outcomes, we are not aware of any successful attempts to relate English public health expenditure to mortality. Moreover, by converting healthcare (treatment) expenditure to a local authority geography, we are also able to estimate an outcome specification that includes both treatment (healthcare) and prevention (public health) expenditure. This enables us to identify the relative contribution of both types of expenditure to reductions in mortality. Previously published work has linked effects on disease specific mortality to changes in quality-adjusted life years. We usethese estimates to report the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for both treatment and public health (prevention) expenditure.

M3 - Discussion paper

T3 - CHE Research Paper

BT - Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

PB - Centre for Health Economics, University of York

CY - York, UK

ER -