Burning a hole in the budget: tobacco spending and its crowd-out of other goods.

Smoking is an expensive habit. Smoking households spend, on average, more than $US1000 annually on cigarettes. When a family member quits, in addition to the former smoker's improved long-term health, families benefit because savings from reduced cigarette expenditures can be allocated to other goods. For households in which some members continue to smoke, smoking expenditures crowd-out other purchases, which may affect other household members, as well as the smoker. We empirically analyse how expenditures on tobacco crowd-out consumption of other goods, estimating the patterns of substitution and complementarity between tobacco products and other categories of household expenditure. We use the Consumer Expenditure Survey data for the years 1995-2001, which we complement with regional price data and state cigarette prices. We estimate a consumer demand system that includes several main expenditure categories (cigarettes, food, alcohol, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care) and controls for socioeconomic variables and other sources of observable heterogeneity. Descriptive data indicate that, comparing smokers to nonsmokers, smokers spend less on housing. Results from the demand system indicate that as the price of cigarettes rises, households increase the quantity of food purchased, and, in some samples, reduce the quantity of apparel and housing purchased.

Genomics research: world survey of public funding.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest. RESULTS: One way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources. CONCLUSION: Aggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare selectivity characteristics among institution characteristics to determine differences by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). METHODS: This study included information provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Data were extracted from all students who graduated in 2011 from accredited physical therapy programs in the United States. The public and private designations of the institutions were extracted directly from the classifications from the 'CAPTE annual accreditation report,' and high and low research activity was determined based on Carnegie classifications. The institutions were classified into four groups: public/research intensive, public/non-research intensive, private/research intensive, and private/non-research intensive. Descriptive and comparison analyses with post hoc testing were performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences among the four groups. RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant baseline grade point average differences among the four categorized groups, there were no significant differences in licensure pass rates or for any of the selectivity variables of interest. CONCLUSION: Selectivity characteristics did not differ by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). This suggests that the concerns about reduced selectivity among physiotherapy programs, specifically the types that are experiencing the largest proliferation, appear less warranted.