Due to the terms of our founding legislation, PCORI is unable to consider any applications that contain cost-effectiveness analysis as one of the aims or goals. Studies that propose to describe or compare costs of care, or to conduct empirical or simulated cost-effectiveness analyses, will be deemed non-responsive and will not advance to Merit Review. We are interested in out-of-pocket costs to patients, which may be proposed for measurement and used as either an outcome or as a mediating variable in analyses. This includes direct measures of adherence and indirect measures including co-payment levels or other assessments of out-of-pocket costs. The potential for replicability or scalability is also critical to demonstrate. For this, we encourage applicants to include cost-related issues, such as resources needed to replicate or disseminate a successful intervention and address reimbursement barriers and how they might be surmounted. Therefore, assessing the cost of an intervention for these purposes is acceptable.
For a study comparing health system–level interventions where the primary analyses are patient-centered outcomes, can funding be used to conduct secondary analyses of economic impacts?
Have more questions? Submit a request