Evidence Of Evidence-Based Health Policy: The Politics Of Systematic Reviews In Coverage Decisions
Abstract
U.S. policymakers are making greater use of findings from systematic reviews, the principal product of the discipline of research synthesis. This paper summarizes the methodology and availability of systematic reviews and the brief history of their introduction to policymakers in the public and private sectors and health professionals in the United States. Then, as a case study, the paper describes how officials in a consortium of states are using systematic reviews to inform decisions about coverage for pharmaceuticals. Finally, it explores the prospects for wider use of systematic reviews by policymakers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many models guiding the policy making process assume policy makers are capable of accurately analyzing decision information, understanding the relevant evidence, are resistant to influences and biases, and seek to make decisions that maximize societal benefit.
“many models guiding the policy making process assume policy makers are capable of accurately analyzing decision information, understanding the relevant evidence, are resistant to influences and biases, and seek to make decisions that maximize societal benefit [5,19,27,28].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [5]
Decision makers spend considerable time and energy on a policy decision when linked to recent dramatic events profiled in the media.
“This example highlights the observation that decision makers spend considerable time and energy on a policy decision when linked to recent dramatic events profiled in the media [2,3,5].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [5]
The number of peer-reviewed publications reporting on the impact of interventional public health laws is growing, as is the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such primary studies.
“The number of peer-reviewed publications reporting on the impact of interventional public health laws is growing, as is the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such primary studies.2”
From The scientific basis for law as a public health tool (2009) · cites this paper as [2]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Fox, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Milbank Memorial Fund (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fox, Daniel M.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 114-122
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2095805913
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, evidence-based health policy, health policy decision-making, politics of evidence, evidence synthesis, health insurance coverage decisions
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Health Policy, Politics, United States, Evidence-Based Medicine, Insurance Coverage, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
