Abstract
The chapter brings together discussions of quality in health care and comparative effectiveness research (CER). The backdrop to this chapter is the search for the highest quality of care in the health system. The specific question addressed is: can the goals of CER (i.e., evidence-informed decision-making to improve health-care quality) be achieved for all potential users of CER information (i.e., patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers) without information on costs? The finding is that CER can be undertaken effectively as a discrete activity without explicit consideration of costs. However, the broader goals of actors within the health-care system (i.e., “to improve health care at both the individual and population levels”) require information on CER as one input, but alone CER is insufficient. The goals for all groups of actors cannot be met without explicit consideration of costs. This is true for all potential users of CER information although the perspective of cost information required by each stakeholder group, not surprisingly, varies. Therefore, the contention is that CER, when coupled with information about cost, provides useful direction in creating high-quality care at the individual and population levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
American College of Physicians. Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):956–61.
American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(3):596–615.
Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, Bayoumi A, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699–703.
Bloche MG, Jacobson PD. The Supreme Court and bedside rationing. JAMA. 2000;284(21):2776–9.
Brock DW. Ethical issues in the development of summary measures of population health status. In: Field MJ, Gold MR, Institute of Medicine, editors. Summarizing population health: directions for the development and application of population metrics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. p. 73–91.
Bryan S, Sofaer S, Siegelberg T, Gold M. Has the time come for cost-effectiveness analysis in US health care? Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):425–43.
Carlsson LM, Peltonen M, Ahlin S, Anveden A, Bouchard C, Carlsson B, et al. Bariatric surgery and prevention of type 2 diabetes in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(8):695–704.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Internet]. Atlanta: 2011 National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. [updated 2012 Jan 10; cited 2013 Sep 7]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet11.htm
Chokshi DA, Farley TA. The cost-effectiveness of environmental approaches to disease prevention. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):295–7.
Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437–43.
Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research the relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):889–97.
Daniels N. Just health care. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1985. 245 p.
Dixon JB, Zimmer P, Alberti RG, Rubino F. Bariatric surgery: an IDF statement for obese Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011;28(6):628–42.
Docteur E, Berenson R. How will comparative effectiveness research affect the quality of health care? Timely analysis of immediate health policy issues. [Internet]. Feb 2010 [updated 2012 Jan 10; cited 2013 Sep 7]. Available from: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412040_comparative_effectiveness.pdf
Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990;263(3):441–3.
Eden J, Wheatley B, McNeil B, Sox H, editors. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008. 256 p.
Garber AM. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(5):62–82.
Garber AM. A menu without prices. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):964–6.
Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. HALYS and QALYS and DALYS, Oh My: similarities and differences in summary measures of population Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:115–34.
Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA. 1991;265(17):2218–25.
Harris J. QALYfying the value of life. J Med Ethics. 1987;13(3):117–23.
Harris J. Life: quality, value and justice. Health Policy. 1988;10(3):259–66.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. 337 p.
Institute of Medicine. For the public’s health: investing in a healthier future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2012a. 296 p.
Institute of Medicine. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: solving the weight of the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2012b. 462 p.
Jacobson PD, Kanna ML. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the courts: recent trends and future prospects. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001;26(2):291–326.
Koch T. Life quality vs the ‘quality of life’: assumptions underlying prospective quality of life instruments in health care planning. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(3):419–27.
Menzel P, Gold MR, Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, Ubel P. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis of health. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29(3):7–15.
Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, Fischer AJ. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organizations: retrospective study. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):65.
Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, Guidone C, Iaconelli A, Leccesi L, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1577–85.
Mortimer D, Peacock S. Social welfare and the affordable care act: is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost? Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(7):1156–62.
Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 1999;8(1):25–39.
Rawles J. Castigating QALYs. J Med Ethics. 1989;15(3):143–7.
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(14):1172–7.
Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, Brethauer SA, Kirwan JP, Pothier CE, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1567–76.
Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:203–5.
Tunis SR. Why medicare has not established criteria for coverage decisions. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2196–8.
Wilensky GR. The policies and politics of creating a comparative clinical effectiveness research center. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):w719–29.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this entry
Cite this entry
Bryan, S., Gold, M. (2015). Costs in Comparative Effectiveness Research. In: Levy, A., Sobolev, B. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services. Health Services Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7586-7_12-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7586-7_12-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7586-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine