IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i3p281-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New and Dis-Improved: On the Evaluation and Use of Less Effective, Less Expensive Medical Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Kent

    (Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • A. Mark Fendrick

    (Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, Consortium for Health Outcomes, Innovation, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies)

  • Kenneth M. Langa

    (Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)

Abstract

The innovation and diffusion of new technologies is in large measure responsible for the persistent rise in the cost of health care. The increasing cost of health care, in turn, will make cost-saving technologies more attractive. When cost-saving technologies lead to better or equivalent outcomes, their acceptance will not be controversial. However, the necessary conditions for the development and clinical acceptance of cost-saving technologies that might diminish the quality of health care have not been systematically considered. Indeed, as the clinical research enterprise has been focused almost entirely on quality-improving (or quality-neutral) innovations, new concepts may need to be introduced for quality-reducing innovations. Although the development of such therapies would, at least in some circumstances, increase overall societal benefits, replacing a standard therapy with a less effective one may conflict with deeply held values, such that conventional cost-effectiveness benchmarks might not apply. In addition, from a clinical research perspective, there are considerable ethical and methodologic hurdles that might impede the development of less expensive, less intensive therapies. In this article, using a hypothetical scenario, the authors consider economic, ethical, and research design issues concerning the innovation and diffusion of less effective, less expensive therapies and introduce 2 concepts—†decremental cost-effectiveness†and “acceptability trials†—that may in part provide a research framework for the study of “new and dis-improved†therapies.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Kent & A. Mark Fendrick & Kenneth M. Langa, 2004. "New and Dis-Improved: On the Evaluation and Use of Less Effective, Less Expensive Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 281-286, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:281-286
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04265478
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04265478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Finkelstein, M.O. & Levin, B. & Robbins, H., 1996. "Clinical and prophylactic trials with assured new treatment for those at greater risk: II. Examples," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(5), pages 696-702.
    2. Finkelstein, M.O. & Levin, B. & Robbins, H., 1996. "Clinical and prophylactic trials with assured new treatment for those at greater risk: I. A design proposal," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(5), pages 691-695.
    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. John Bridges, 2006. "Lean Systems Approaches to Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 101-109, December.
    2. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M.G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & James K. Hammitt & Karen M. Kuntz & Milton C. Weinstein, 2007. "Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 101-111, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Frölich & Blaise Melly, 2013. "Identification of Treatment Effects on the Treated with One-Sided Non-Compliance," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 384-414, November.
    2. Cook, Thomas D., 2008. ""Waiting for Life to Arrive": A history of the regression-discontinuity design in Psychology, Statistics and Economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 636-654, February.
    3. Geneletti, Sara & O'Keeffe, Aidan G. & Sharples, Linda D. & Richardson, Sylvia & Baio, Gianluca, 2015. "Bayesian regression discontinuity designs: incorporating clinical knowledge in the causal analysis of primary care data," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65600, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Vivian C. Wong & Peter M. Steiner & Thomas D. Cook, 2013. "Analyzing Regression-Discontinuity Designs With Multiple Assignment Variables," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(2), pages 107-141, April.

    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:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:281-286. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.