IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uclaph/qt5fg9n284.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Drug Evaluations: Type I vs. Type II Errors

Author

Listed:
  • Intriligator, Michael D.

Abstract

Drug testing in the United States is currently biased toward the minimization of "Type I" error, that is, toward minimizing the chance of approving drugs that are unsafe or ineffective. This regulatory focus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ignores the potential for committing the alternative "Type II" error, that is, the error of not approving drugs that are, in fact, safe and effective. Such Type II errors can result in the loss of significant benefits to society when the sale of drugs that are safe and effective is prohibited. The present drug approval system puts enormous stress on Type I errors and largely ignores Type II errors, thereby raising the cost of drug testing and delaying the availability of safe and effective drugs. A more balanced set of FDA drug approval standards, accounting for the consequences of both Type I and Type II errors, could result in better outcomes, as compared to the present system.

Suggested Citation

  • Intriligator, Michael D., 1996. "Drug Evaluations: Type I vs. Type II Errors," University of California at Los Angeles, Research Program in Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy qt5fg9n284, Research Program in Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, UCLA.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uclaph:qt5fg9n284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5fg9n284.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:uclaph:qt5fg9n284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/pep/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.