Economic analysis in behavioral health: Toward application of standardized methodologies.

Health care remains the most expensive sector in the U.S. economy, now accounting for nearly 1 in every 5 dollars spent. The purpose of health care is to improve the health of populations. However, formal medical care is one of many alternatives for improving health. In order to make better use of scarce resources, cost-effectiveness methodologies have been developed to evaluate how to produce the most health within the constraints of available resources. Standardized cost-effectiveness methodologies are now commonly used in the evaluation of medical therapies and new technologies. However, these methods have rarely been employed for the evaluation of behavioral interventions. Behavioral interventions often use measures that are not generally applied in other areas of health outcomes research. A consequence of neglecting to employ standardized cost-effectiveness analysis is that behavioral, psychological, and environmental interventions may be left out of resource allocation discussions. The purpose of this paper is to review standardized approaches to cost-effectiveness analysis and to encourage their use for the evaluation of behavioral intervention programs. Application of standardized methods of cost-effectiveness analysis will allow direct comparisons between investing in behavioral interventions programs in comparison to a wide range of other alternatives. The methods are general and can be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of social and environmental interventions in addition to traditional medical and surgical treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Labor and skills gap analysis of the biomedical research workforce.

The United States has experienced an unsustainable increase of the biomedical research workforce over the past 3 decades. This expansion has led to a myriad of consequences, including an imbalance in the number of researchers and available tenure-track faculty positions, extended postdoctoral training periods, increasing age of investigators at first U.S. National Institutes of Health R01 grant, and exodus of talented individuals seeking careers beyond traditional academe. Without accurate data on the biomedical research labor market, challenges will remain in resolving these problems and in advising trainees of viable career options and the skills necessary to be productive in their careers. We analyzed workforce trends, integrating both traditional labor market information and real-time job data. We generated a profile of the current biomedical research workforce, performed labor gap analyses of occupations in the workforce at regional and national levels, and assessed skill transferability between core and complementary occupations. We conclude that although supply into the workforce and the number of job postings for occupations within that workforce have grown over the past decade, supply continues to outstrip demand. Moreover, we identify practical skill sets from real-time job postings to optimally equip trainees for an array of careers to effectively meet future workforce demand.-Mason, J. L., Johnston, E., Berndt, S., Segal, K., Lei, M., Wiest, J. S. Labor and skills gap analysis of the biomedical research workforce.