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

David M. Kent, A. Mark Fendrick and Kenneth M. Langa
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2004, vol. 24, issue 3, 281-286

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.

Keywords: costs; cost analysis; cost-benefit analysis; health care economics and organizations; economics; pharmaceutical; medical; sepsis syndrome; activated protein c (drotrecogin alfa activated); health care rationing; developing countries (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2004
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04265478 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:281-286

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265478

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().