What manner of organization is the National Bureau of Economic Research? How does it select research topics? Who does the work and what kind of tasks do they perform? Where do the funds come from? How does the National Bureau safeguard the scientific quality of its findings? How are the results disseminated? Visitors to the National Bureau often ask these and similar questions; perhaps the answers will be of interest to readers of the American Statistician. The National Bureau of Economic Research is a private non-profit corporation, formed, according to its charter, "to conduct, or assist in the making of exact and impartial investigations in the field of economic, social and industrial science, and to this end to cooperate with governments, universities, learned societies, and individuals." Hence it is not a government agency, nor an adjunct of a university, nor does it sell research services. The revenue from the only products it does sell, publications, barely covers the printing costs. Its funds are contributed by philanthropic foundations, by trade and professional organizations, by business concerns, trade unions, and individuals. Contributions are usually on a yearly basis, but some grants cover several years. Some of the funds are earmarked for specific studies; the balance goes to support a general program of research. The National Bureau is governed by a Board of Directors numbering about thirty, selected to represent various institutions and diverse points of view on economic problems. Over the years since the Bureau was founded in 1920 this body of men has made a significant contribution to the development of scientific inquiry in economics, both within the National Bureau and outside. Such outstanding economists as Wesley C. Mitchell, George E. Roberts, Allyn A. Young, Edwin F. Gay, Thomas S. Adams, and John R. Commons have been among its members. At the present time professors from a dozen universities are on the Board. Also, Directors from each of the following organizations are elected: American Statistical Association, American Economic Association, American Farm Economic Association, Economic History Association, American Institute of Accountants, American Management Association, Congress of Industrial Organizations, and American Federation of Labor. Finally, there is a group of Directors at Large, men from varied walks of life with an abiding interest in economic research. The Board serves an important function not only in shaping the broad lines of the research program but also in safeguarding the quality of the results. Matters of policy requiring prompt action are handled by an Executive Committee of eleven, elected by the Board from its membership. Arthur F. Burns, the Director of Research, is the member of the Committee who is directly responsible for the research program. The members of the research staff, numbering about twenty-five, direct the individual studies, and are aided in their work by upwards of forty-five research assistants. A staff of typists, bookkeepers, mimeograph operators, etc., brings the total payroll of the National Bureau to roughly a hundred persons. William J. Carson, the Executive Director, handles the Bureau's finances, accounts, and other administrative matters. Not all the employees of the National Bureau work at the main office at 1819 Broadway, New York City. DuLr Financial Research Program is housed at "Hillside," an estate about 10 miles north of Manhattan overlooking the HuLdson River. Other National BureauL investigators are to be fotund at various universities throughout the United States, since cooperative arrangements are maintained with a number of universities that permit their facultv members to engage in National Butreau studies. Government agencies, too, cooperate in similar ways. Such cooperative relationships are a vital feature of our work, and we try to foster them in many ways. The growing acceptance on the part of universities of the view that research is part of the job of a faculty member has helped to make these efforts productive. For example, for a number of years we have appointed promising young men or women holding university positions as Research Associates for one year. The objective is to enable scholars to pursue their research interests in fields in which the National Bureau also has an interest. Since 1930 twenty-six Research Associates, coming from eighteen American colleges or universities and two foreign universities, have been appointed under the plan. The work of several committees is another example of cooperation for the purpose of advancing research. Two committees, one on financial and the other on fiscal research, help to guide our studies in these areas. They are composed of experts from universities, government agencies, and private business. In 1935 the Universities-National Bureau Committee was established for the express purpose of promoting contact

The National Bureau of Economic Research

Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: A systematic review.

https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/31805/1/Global_2_Lancet_2017_389_10083_1981.pdf

Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995–2014: development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/health-financing-transition-framework-evidence_1.pdf

The Health Financing Transition: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation’s resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost–effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities – implicitly or explicitly – it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.

Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage

Health care spending has risen steadily in most countries, becoming a concern for decision-makers worldwide. Commentators often point to new medical technology as the key driver for burgeoning expenditures. This paper critically appraises this conjecture, based on an analysis of the existing literature, with the aim of offering a more detailed and considered analysis of this relationship. Several databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Various categories of studies (eg, multivariate and cost-effectiveness analyses) were included to cover different perspectives, methodological approaches, and issues regarding the link between medical technology and costs. Selected articles were reviewed and relevant information was extracted into a standardized template and analyzed for key cross-cutting themes, ie, impact of technology on costs, factors influencing this relationship, and methodological challenges in measuring such linkages. A total of 86 studies were reviewed. The analysis suggests that the relationship between medical technology and spending is complex and often conflicting. Findings were frequently contingent on varying factors, such as the availability of other interventions, patient population, and the methodological approach employed. Moreover, the impact of technology on costs differed across technologies, in that some (eg, cancer drugs, invasive medical devices) had significant financial implications, while others were cost-neutral or cost-saving. In light of these issues, we argue that decision-makers and other commentators should extend their focus beyond costs solely to include consideration of whether medical technology results in better value in health care and broader socioeconomic benefits.

/pdf/medical-technology-as-a-key-driver-of-rising-health-1kahzs996w.pdf

Bhuiyan Khan B

Papers

Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship.