Research
Research and the Ulcer Problem
Jan 1, 1959
Expert InsightsPublished 1967
An updating of the data on the social cost of peptic ulcer presented in an earlier RAND study, R-336-RC. The previous study focused on the years 1954-1956; the present study focuses on 1963. Three indicators of the economic cost of peptic ulcer are examined: deaths due to ulcer, its prevalence in the population, and economic loss. The concept of economic loss as developed in the previous study has three components: (1) direct cost of resources diverted to medical care of the disease; (2) indirect cost resulting from the loss of individual productivity; and (3) indirect cost resulting from the loss of future productivity of individuals whose death is attributed to the disease. Total deaths ascribed to peptic ulcer in 1954 were 9,610. The number for 1963 was 11,900. If the 1963 rate is projected to the 1965 population, the total deaths are then estimated to be 12,500. The updated estimate of the economic cost of peptic ulcer approximates $1 billion.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.