Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Health Care Decision Making in the USA Through Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Role of Economic Evaluation

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received growing attention in the USA, and elsewhere, in recent years. CER aims to produce the best evidence to empower clinicians and other health-care providers to make rational decisions regarding what treatment is most effective at the individual and population level. However, unlike many other countries, the evidence generated by CER in the USA has traditionally been limited to the effectiveness, benefits and harms of health-care interventions, with cost being omitted from the analysis. The inclusion of economic evaluation as part of CER remains a debate. Based on other countries’ experience, the inclusion of economic evaluation into CER would allow decision makers to make trade-off assessments between the benefits and opportunity costs associated with all the possible treatment options before making a decision. However, bridging economic evaluation and CER is not without pitfalls. This paper discusses the role of economic evaluation in improving health-care decision making in the USA through CER and proposes the establishment of an independent institution in each US state to generate the necessary data and make drug coverage recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role. 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/12-18-comparativeeffectiveness.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014.

  2. Fairbrother G, O’Brien E, Pradhananga R, Chalkidou K. Improving quality and efficiency in health care through comparative effectiveness analyses: an international perspective. 2014. http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/2014CERImprovingQuality.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2015.

  3. Goodman CS. Introduction to health technology assessment. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US). 2014. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/HTA_101_FINAL_7-23-14.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015.

  4. Kernick D. An introduction to the basic principles of health economics for those involved in the development and delivery of headache care. Cephalalgia. 2005;25(9):709–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Protecting Privacy in Computerized Medical Information, OTA-TCT-576. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.

  6. Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. National Academies Press; 2009.

  7. Menon D, Stafinski T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12(s2):S14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Comparative effectiveness research: relevance and applications to pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(14):1278–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hahn OM, Schilsky RL. Randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4194–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hill AB. Reflections on controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 1966;25(2):107–13.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Armstrong K. Methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4208–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA. 1992;268(2):240–8.

  13. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hlatky MA, Winkelmayer WC, Setoguchi S. Epidemiologic and statistical methods for comparative effectiveness research. Heart Fail Clin. 2013;9(1):29–36.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sox HC, Goodman SN. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012;33:425–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, Dormuth CR, Siebert U. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part III. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1062–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer A, Wheeler SB, Weinberger M, Chen RC, Carpenter WR. An overview of methods for comparative effectiveness research. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014;24(1):5–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sher DJ, Punglia RS. Decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis for comparative effectiveness research—a primer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014;24(1):14–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert UWE, Sullivan SD. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilensky GR. Cost-effectiveness information: yes, it’s important, but keep it separate, please! Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):967–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lyman GH. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: The need for clarity, transparency and vision. Cancer Invest. 2009;27(6):593–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1805–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marko NF, Weil RJ. An introduction to comparative effectiveness research. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(2):425–34 (discussion 434).

  24. Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. http://www.silcom.com/~dwsmith/about.html. Accessed 7 May 2014.

  25. McCormick KA, Cummings MA, Kovner C. The role of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) in improving outcomes of care. Nurs Clin N Am. 1997;32(3):521–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations. 2014. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/index.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2014.

  27. Medicare Prescription Drug, Modernization, and Improvement Act of 2003.108–73(107 (a)(1)).

  28. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program Overview. 2014. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/overview/index.html. Accessed 12 May 2014.

  29. Comparative Effectiveness: Better Value for the Money? Alliance for Health Reform. 2008. http://www.allhealth.org/publications/Quality_of_care/Comparative_Effectiveness_Better_Value_for_the_Money_84.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014.

  30. The Patient Protection and Affordable care Act. The Patient Protection and Affordable care Act. Public Law. 2010;111–48.

  31. Washington AE, Lipstein SH. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute—promoting better information, decisions, and health. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(15):e31(1)–(3).

  32. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2014. http://www.pcori.org/about-us. Accessed 12 June 2015.

  33. Sack K. Feeling Budget pinch, states cut insurance. The New York Times. 2011.

  34. Dusetzina SB, Winn AN, Abel GA, Huskamp HA, Keating NL. Cost sharing and adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(4):306–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, et al. Early discontinuation and nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27):4120–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Neugut AI, Subar M, Wilde ET, et al. Association between prescription co-payment amount and compliance with adjuvant hormonal therapy in women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(18):2534–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaisaeng N, Harpe SE, Carroll NV. Out-of-pocket costs and oral cancer medication discontinuation in the elderly. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(7):669–75.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hershman DL, Shao T, Kushi LH, et al. Early discontinuation and non-adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy are associated with increased mortality in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(2):529–37.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zafar SY, Peppercorn JM, Schrag D, et al. The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: a pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient’s experience. Oncologist. 2013;18(4):381–90.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gluck, EM. Incorporating Costs into Comparative Effectiveness Research. AcademyHealth’s 2009 National Health Policy Conference. 2009. http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/ResearchInsightsCER.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2014.

  41. Danzon PM, Taylor E. Drug pricing and value in oncology. Oncologist. 2010;15(1):24–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, Ramsey SD. Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12(s2):S39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009;59:1–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):339–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Raftery J. Value based pricing: can it work? BMJ. 2013;347:f5941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Raftery J. NICE and the challenge of cancer drugs. BMJ. 2009;338:b67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Peppercorn J, Zafar SY, Houck K, Ubel P, Meropol NJ. Does comparative effectiveness research promote rationing of cancer care? Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):e132–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, Harrigan B, Briggs AH. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lopert R. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009;60:1–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common Drug Review (CDR). 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/cdr. Accessed 11 June 2015.

  51. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCORD). 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/pcodr. Accessed 11 June 2015.

  52. NHS Support Federation. NHS for Sale? Providing NHS Privatisation The postcode lottery. 2015. http://www.nhsforsale.info/database/impact-database/less-fair/Less-fair-subpage.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2015.

  53. Curtis P, Gordon C, Slaughter-Mason S, Thielke A. Washington State Health Technology Assessment Program: Stakeholder engagement project. Portland: Center for Evidence-based Policy, Oregon Health & Science University; 2012.

  54. Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University press; 2005.

  55. Heyland DK, Gafni A, Kernerman P, Keenan S, Chalfin D. How to use the results of an economic evaluation. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(6):1195–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the reviewers and the editor for the insightful comments on earlier versions of the current article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University, 200 Dyson Pharmacy Bldg., 1520 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA

    Askal Ayalew Ali, Ellen S. Campbell & Vakaramoko Diaby

  2. Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy (POP), College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA

    Hong Xiao

Authors
  1. Askal Ayalew Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen S. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vakaramoko Diaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Askal Ayalew Ali.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work is independent research that has not benefited from any financial support.

Conflict of interest

Askal A. Ali, Hong Xiao, Ellen S. Campbell, and Vakaramoko Diaby have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

V. Diaby Senior author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, A.A., Xiao, H., Campbell, E.S. et al. Improving Health Care Decision Making in the USA Through Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Role of Economic Evaluation. Pharm Med 29, 247–253 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-015-0113-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-015-0113-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation