RAND Corporation

About: RAND Corporation is a nonprofit organization based out in Santa Monica, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Population. The organization has 9602 authors who have published 18570 publications receiving 744658 citations.

Evidence for the effect of disease management: is $1 billion a year a good investment?

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To assess the evidence for the effect of disease management on quality of care, disease control, and cost, with a focus on population-based programs. STUDY DESIGN Literature review. METHODS We conducted a literature search for and a structured review of studies on population-based disease management programs, as well as for reviews and meta-analyses of disease management interventions. We identified 3 evaluations of large-scale population-based programs, as well as 10 meta-analyses and 16 systematic reviews, covering 317 unique studies. RESULTS We found consistent evidence that disease management improves processes of care and disease control but no conclusive support for its effect on health outcomes. Overall, disease management does not seem to affect utilization except for a reduction in hospitalization rates among patients with congestive heart failure and an increase in outpatient care and prescription drug use among patients with depression. When the costs of the intervention were appropriately accounted for and subtracted from any savings, there was no conclusive evidence that disease management leads to a net reduction of direct medical costs. CONCLUSIONS Although disease management seems to improve quality of care, its effect on cost is uncertain. Most of the evidence to date addresses small-scale programs targeting high-risk individuals, while only 3 studies evaluate large population-based interventions, implying that little is known about their effect. Payers and policy makers should remain skeptical about vendor claims and should demand supporting evidence based on transparent and scientifically sound methods.

Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments.

Abstract: Objective To systematically review evidence from field interventions on the effectiveness of monetary subsidies in promoting healthier food purchases and consumption. Design Keyword and reference searches were conducted in five electronic databases: Cochrane Library, EconLit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies were included based on the following criteria: (i) intervention: field experiments; (ii) population: adolescents 12–17 years old or adults 18 years and older; (iii) design: randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or pre–post studies; (iv) subsidy: price discounts or vouchers for healthier foods; (v) outcome: food purchases or consumption; (vi) period: 1990–2012; and (vii) language: English. Twenty-four articles on twenty distinct experiments were included with study quality assessed using predefined methodological criteria. Setting Interventions were conducted in seven countries: the USA (n 14), Canada (n 1), France (n 1), Germany (n 1), Netherlands (n 1), South Africa (n 1) and the UK (n 1). Subsidies applied to different types of foods such as fruits, vegetables and low-fat snacks sold in supermarkets, cafeterias, vending machines, farmers’ markets or restaurants. Subjects Interventions enrolled various population subgroups such as school/ university students, metropolitan transit workers and low-income women. Results All but one study found subsidies on healthier foods to significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products. Study limitations include small and convenience samples, short intervention and follow-up duration, and lack of cost-effectiveness and overall diet assessment. Conclusions Subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behaviour. Future studies should examine its long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at the population level and its impact on overall diet intake.

Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense.

Abstract: Prospective registration of systematic reviews promotes transparency, helps reduce potential for bias and serves to avoid unintended duplication of reviews. Registration offers advantages to many stakeholders in return for modest additional effort from the researchers registering their reviews.