, Volume 28, Issue 10, pp 843–853

The Economics of Comparative Effectiveness Studies

Societal and Private Perspectives and their Implications for Prioritizing Public Investments in Comparative Effectiveness Research
Policy and Implementation Economics of Comparative Effectiveness Studies


Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can provide valuable information for patients, providers and payers. These stakeholders differ in their incentives to invest in CER. To maximize benefits from public investments in CER, it is important to understand the value of CER from the perspectives of these stakeholders and how that affects their incentives to invest in CER. This article provides a conceptual framework for valuing CER, and illustrates the potential benefits of such studies from a number of perspectives using several case studies.We examine cases in which CER provides value by identifying when one treatment is consistently better than others, when different treatments are preferred for different subgroups, and when differences are small enough that decisions can be made based on price. We illustrate these findings using value-of-information techniques to assess the value of research, and by examining changes in pharmaceutical prices following publication of a comparative effectiveness study.Our results suggest that CER may have high societal value but limited private return to providers or payers. This suggests the importance of public efforts to promote the production of CER. We also conclude that value-of-information toolsmay help inform policy decisions about how much public funds to invest in CER and how to prioritize the use of available public funds forCER, in particular targeting publicCERspending to areas where private incentives are low relative to social benefits.


  1. 1.
    Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005 Jan–Feb; 24 (1): 128–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, et al., editors. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garber AM, Meltzer DO. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research. In: Implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods, and impact. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2009: 15–35 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Jul 5]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DiMasi JA. Price trends for prescription pharmaceuticals: 1995–1999. A background report prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Conference on Pharmaceutical Pricing Practices, Utilization and Costs; 2000 Aug 8–9; Washington, DC [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Mar 11]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Applied statistical decision theory. Beverly (MA): Harvard Business School, Colonial Press, 1961Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pratt JW, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Introduction to statistical decision theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996; 5 (6): 513–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornberger J. A cost-benefit analysis of a cardiovascular disease prevention trial using folate supplementation as an example. Am J Public Health 1998; 88 (1): 61–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ 2001; 20 (1): 109–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1209–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meltzer DO, Basu A, Meltzer HY. Comparative effectiveness research for antipsychotic medications: how much is enough? Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28 (5): w794–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Value-of-information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making 2007; 27 (2): 112–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caves RE, Whinston MD, Hurwitz MA. Patent expiration, entry and competition in the US pharmaceutical industry: an exploratory analysis. Brookings Pap Econ Act: Microeconomics 1991; 1: 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh BN, Singh SN, Reda DJ, et al. Amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (18): 1861–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson Healthcare. Red Book® 2000–6 ed. Montvale (NJ): Thompson PDR, 2007Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    US Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Feb 15]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yin W. Do market incentives generate innovation or balkanization? Evidence from the market for rare disease drugs [working paper]. Chicago (IL): Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, 2006Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Claxton K, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. When is evidence sufficient? Health Aff 2005 Jan–Feb; 24 (1): 93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Department of Economics, and Graduate School of Public Policy StudiesThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations