The fundamental goal of policy analysis is to understand the effect of an intervention on patients, health care professionals, or hospitals. Although a randomized controlled design is considered the criterion standard for isolating a causal effect, such a design is rarely plausible in health policy evaluation. As such, researchers often rely on observational data to evaluate a policy’s consequences.1 For example, recent analyses of the association of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with outcomes for surgical patients have shown important gains in insurance coverage, timely access to care, and increased rehabilitation facility access after discharge.2-4 While analyses of observational data alone cannot determine causality, valuable evidence regarding their impact can be drawn when applying best analytic practices from across academic disciplines.1
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Scott JW, Schwartz TA, Dimick JB. Practical Guide to Health Policy Evaluation Using Observational Data. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(4):353–354. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4398
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: