This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kent, D. M. Articles by Langa, K. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kent, D. M. Articles by Langa, K. M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB HEPARIN Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

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

A. Mark Fendrick, MD

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, MD, PhD

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

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.

Key Words: 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

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, No. 3, 281-286 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265478


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. L. Nelson, J. T. Cohen, D. Greenberg, and D. M. Kent Much Cheaper, Almost as Good: Decrementally Cost-Effective Medical Innovation Ann Intern Med, November 3, 2009; 151(9): 662 - 667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Groot Koerkamp, M.G. M. Hunink, T. Stijnen, J. K. Hammitt, K. M. Kuntz, and M. C. Weinstein Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 101 - 111. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Wagmiller, J. J. Griggs, A. W. Dick, and D. M. Sahasrabudhe Individualized Strategy for Dosing Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer: Identification of Outcomes and Costs J. Oncol. Pract, March 1, 2006; 2(2): 57 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Kent, D. M. Mwamburi, M. L. Bennish, B. Kupelnick, and J. P. A. Ioannidis Clinical Trials in Sub-Saharan Africa and Established Standards of Care: A Systematic Review of HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Trials JAMA, July 14, 2004; 292(2): 237 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]