The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract

Following an acrimonious healthcare reform debate involving charges of "death panels," in 2010, Congress explicitly forbade the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in government programs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In this context, comparative effectiveness research emerged as an alternative strategy to understand better what works in health care. Put simply, comparative effectiveness research compares the efficacy of two or more diagnostic tests, treatments, or health care delivery methods without any explicit consideration of costs . To economists, the omission of costs from an assessment might seem nonsensical, but we argue that comparative effectiveness research still holds promise. First, it sidesteps one problem facing cost-effectiveness analysis—the widespread political resistance to the idea of using prices in health care. Second, there is little or no evidence on comparative effectiveness for a vast array of treatments: for example, we don't know whether proton-beam therapy, a very expensive treatment for prostate cancer (which requires building a cyclotron and a facility the size of a football field) offers any advantage over conventional approaches. Most drug studies compare new drugs to placebos, rather than "head-to-head" with other drugs on the market, leaving a vacuum as to which drug works best. Finally, the comparative effectiveness research can prove a useful first step even in the absence of cost information if it provides key estimates of treatment effects. After all, such effects are typically expensive to determine and require years or even decades of data. Costs are much easier to measure, and can be appended at a later date as financial Armageddon draws closer.

COX-2 Selective Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Risk of Gastrointestinal Tract Complications and Myocardial Infarction

“…However, the increasing quantity and quality of administrative data may offer a promising source of information to precisely estimate these models. 64,65 …”

In the Shadow of a Giant: Medicare’s Influence on Private Physician Payments

“…1 The markets and public programs that allocate this care thus have substantial welfare implications (Chandra, Jena, and Skinner 2011). When prices signal relationships between production costs and consumers’ willingness to pay, they steer markets toward efficient outcomes.…”

An Evaluation of the Proposed Worker Protection Standard with Respect to Pesticide Exposure and Parkinson’s Disease

“…We use the QALY for PD patients ( QALY PD = 0.667) and the QALY for healthy people ( QALY H = 0.810) estimated by Vossius et al [13]. We use $100,000 as the value of one QALY gained ( V) because Chandra et al [14] noted that it is the value by which an effective regulation is measured.…”