Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 10;16(1):1.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0276-7.

Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes

Affiliations

Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes

Matthew Glover et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Building on an approach applied to cardiovascular and cancer research, we estimated the economic returns from United Kingdom public- and charitable-funded musculoskeletal disease (MSD) research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes in the United Kingdom.

Methods: To calculate the economic returns from MSD-related research in the United Kingdom, we estimated (1) the public and charitable expenditure on MSD-related research in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 2013; (2) the net monetary benefit (NMB), derived from the health benefit in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of £25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1994 to 2013; (3) the proportion of NMB attributable to United Kingdom research; and (4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain. The data collected from these four key elements were used to estimate the internal rate of return (IRR) from MSD-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using a one-way sensitivity analysis.

Results: Expressed in 2013 prices, total expenditure on MSD-related research from 1970 to 2013 was £3.5 billion, and for the period used to estimate the rate of return, 1978-1997, was £1.4 billion. Over the period 1994-2013 the key interventions analysed produced 871,000 QALYs with a NMB of £16 billion, allowing for the net NHS costs resulting from them and valuing a QALY at £25,000. The proportion of benefit attributable to United Kingdom research was 30% and the elapsed time between funding and impact of MSD treatments was 16 years. Our best estimate of the IRR from MSD-related research was 7%, which is similar to the 9% for CVD and 10% for cancer research.

Conclusions: Our estimate of the IRR from the net health gain to public and charitable funding of MSD-related research in the United Kingdom is substantial, and justifies the research investments made between 1978 and 1997. We also demonstrated the applicability of the approach previously used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular and cancer research. Inevitably, with a study of this kind, there are a number of important assumptions and caveats that we highlight, and these can inform future research.

Keywords: Elapsed time; Medical research charities; Medical research investment; Musculoskeletal disease; QALYs; Rate of return; Research payback; Value of health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overall study approach
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cash expenditure on MSD research from 1970 to 2013, by funder
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Real term expenditure, 2013 prices, on MSD research 1978 to 1997 (shaded area for 1978 to 1997)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Annual monetised QALYs, net costs of delivery and net monetary benefit – Musculoskeletal disease interventions 1994–2013
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Elapsed time of the cited papers extracted from guidelines

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Røttingen J-A, Regmi S, Eide M, Young AJ, Viergever RF, Ardal C, Guzman J, Edwards D, Matlin SA, Terry RF. Mapping of available health research and development data: what’s there, what’s missing, and what role is there for a global observatory? Lancet. 2013;382:1286–307. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61046-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe . Medical Research: What’s it Worth? Estimating the Economic Benefits from Medical Research in the UK. London: UK Evaluation Forum; 2008.
    1. Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Medicine. 2014;12:99. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-99. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sussex J, Feng Y, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Pistollato M, Hafner M, Burridge P, Grant J. Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private R&D funding in the United Kingdom. BMC Medicine. 2016;14:32. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0564-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buxton M, Hanney S, Jones T. Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:733–739. - PMC - PubMed