IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/15633.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research on Health and Health Care Spending

Author

Listed:
  • Anirban Basu
  • Tomas J. Philipson

Abstract

Public technology assessments in general and Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) in particular have been justified by offsetting benefits of improving patient health and reducing health care spending. However, little conceptual and empirical understanding exists concerning the quantitative impact of public technology assessments such as CER. This is needed to assess whether CER has benefits that outweighs its investment costs. This paper provides a systematic framework to analyze the impact of CER on health outcomes and medical care spending. We interpret CER to infuse evidence on product quality into the market place declaring product winners and losers. This shifts demand by patients and doctors as well as coverage by third party payers towards the winners of CER studies and away from losers. We trace out the spending and health implications of such responses to evidence on product quality in privately and publicly financed health care markets. We simulate these effects for antipsychotics that are among the largest drug classes of the US Medicaid program and for which CER has been conducted by means of the CATIE trial in 1999. Our main conclusion, from both the conceptual and empirical analysis, is that investments into CER may not always have the intended benefits of lowering spending and improving health outcomes. Because CER may result in higher spending and worse health, it is important to have methods to evaluate quantitatively the impacts of CER investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Anirban Basu & Tomas J. Philipson, 2010. "The Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research on Health and Health Care Spending," NBER Working Papers 15633, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15633 Note: HC HE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15633.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duggan, Mark, 2005. "Do new prescription drugs pay for themselves?: The case of second-generation antipsychotics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-31, January.
    2. Anupam B. Jena & Stéphane Mechoulan & Tomas J. Philipson, 2010. "Altruism and Innovation in Health Care," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 497-518.
    3. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2008. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1224-1236, September.
    4. Basu, Anirban, 2011. "Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 549-559, May.
    5. Tomas J. Philipson & Dana Goldman, 2007. "Integrated Insurance Design in the Presence of Multiple Medical Technologies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 427-432, May.
    6. Pauly, Mark V. & Blavin, Fredric E., 2008. "Moral hazard in insurance, value-based cost sharing, and the benefits of blissful ignorance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1407-1417, December.
    7. Anupam Jena & Tomas Philipson, 2009. "Endogenous Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care Technology Adoption," NBER Working Papers 15032, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amitabh Chandra & Anupam B. Jena & Jonathan S. Skinner, 2011. "The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 27-46, Spring.
    2. Basu, Anirban, 2015. "Welfare implications of learning through solicitation versus diversification in health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 165-173.
    3. Kristopher J. Hult, 2017. "Measuring the Potential Health Impact of Personalized Medicine: Evidence from MS Treatments," NBER Chapters,in: Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Basu Anirban, 2013. "Personalized Medicine in the Context of Comparative Effectiveness Research," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 107-120, June.
    5. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2012. "Private Manufacturers’ Thresholds to Invest in Comparative Effectiveness Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 859-868, October.
    6. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2013. "Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 172-180.
    7. Anirban Basu, 2012. "Estimating Person-Centered Treatment (PeT) Effects Using Instrumental Variables," NBER Working Papers 18056, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Basu, Anirban, 2011. "Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 549-559, May.
    9. Evans, H. & Basu, A, 2011. "Exploring comparative effect heterogeneity with instrumental variables: prehospital intubation and mortality," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/08, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Mousnad, Mohamed Awad & Shafie, Asrul Akmal & Ibrahim, Mohamed Izham, 2014. "Systematic review of factors affecting pharmaceutical expenditures," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 137-146.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:nbr:nberwo:15633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.