Sounding Board
Comparative Effectiveness and Health Care Spending — Implications for Reform
N Engl J Med 2010; 362:460-465February 4, 2010
- Article
Title VIII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorizes the expenditure of $1.1 billion to conduct research comparing “clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions.” Federal support of “comparative effectiveness” research has been viewed as a cornerstone in controlling runaway health care costs.
Although cost is not mentioned explicitly in the comparative effectiveness legislation, the American College of Physicians and others have called for cost-effectiveness analysis — assessment of the added improvement in health outcomes relative to cost — to be on the agenda for comparative effectiveness research.1,2 This approach has come under harsh criticism from some who view it as the first step in health care rationing by the government — that cost cutting will mean the withdrawal of expensive treatments with small (but still positive) benefits. Some politicians have therefore tried to restrict any efforts to use comparative effectiveness to guide U.S. health care policy.3
Comparative Effectiveness versus Cost-Effectiveness
Many supporters of comparative effectiveness research contend that there is little need to confront cost-effectiveness in order to contain costs. Some clinical practices, once subjected to rigorous evaluation, have been found to be of no benefit, if not harmful. Moreover, there is considerable variation in health care expenditures and a weak or even negative association between spending and outcomes, such as mortality at the regional level4 and quality measures at the state level.5 This evidence has been interpreted to mean that cutting back on these putatively useless or harmful services would simultaneously reduce cost and improve health.4,6 In contrast, several cross-sectional studies that have shown positive associations between spending and outcomes have been interpreted to show that more spending leads to better outcomes.7
We question whether these associations — either negative or positive — are being interpreted correctly. An association between higher spending and poorer outcomes does not imply causality. Such negative associations may result if physicians and hospitals in lower-cost areas are more skilled — or if they use resources for more cost-effective services.
Whether additional spending yields improved outcomes depends critically on what the money is spent on. Clinical trials of treatments such as coronary reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction, implantable cardioverter–defibrillator therapy, fusion surgery for spinal stenosis, and new drugs for patients with cancer or the AIDS have established their comparative benefits.8-13 Several of the cost-effectiveness ratios for these treatments are well under $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, indicating good value for the money (Table 1Table 1
Cost per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) Gained from Selected Clinical Strategies.).But cost-effectiveness studies reveal a stunning range of incremental cost per QALY gained, ranging from a negative net cost to millions of dollars per QALY gained.14 Preventive services are no more and no less likely to save money than treatments.15 For example, annual screening for cervical cancer costs about $800,000 more for every life-year gained than does biennial screening.16 Small variations in the mix of utilization across the spectrum of therapeutic, diagnostic, and preventive technologies could produce large geographic variations in overall costs and health outcomes.
As long as there are opportunities to substitute more cost-effective clinical strategies for less cost-effective ones, costs can be lowered without adversely affecting health. But at some point, difficult choices must be made. Should the Medicare program continue to pay for cancer drugs that improve survival by a median of 10 days and have cost-effectiveness ratios of up to $500,000 per QALY added?12,17
Relating Health Care Expenditures to Outcomes
Figure 1Figure 1
Levels of Efficiency in Allocating Health Care Resources. shows different levels of efficiency (as measured in QALYs gained per expenditure) in two hypothetical health care delivery systems.18 The purple curve represents an efficient system; along this curve, higher expenditure leads to better outcomes.19 Each segment of the curve represents either the addition of an intervention for a particular clinical condition or the substitution of an intervention that is more effective but more expensive for an intervention that is less expensive but less effective. Each slope represents value for money — the incremental gain in health per dollar spent (steeper is better) — and the length of the segment reflects the degree to which the service is utilized. The incremental value of an addition or substitution to the mix of services often depends on what other services are already in the mix; for example, the added value of coronary catheterization may be lower when the hospital is already providing appropriate medical management for patients with acute myocardial infarction.20 The blue curve in Figure 1 represents an inefficient health delivery system, in which some cost-effective health services are underutilized. For example, the health service that is represented by segment L′ in the inefficient system is shorter than the segment L in the efficient system. As examples, antihypertensive treatment, screening for colorectal cancer, and counseling for smoking cessation are all underutilized in the United States.21,22 In both the more efficient system and the less efficient system, it is possible to increase expenditures to the point where they yield little or no health improvement, which is sometimes referred to as “flat-of-the-curve” medicine.23
In Figure 1, the efficient system spends less but obtains better health outcomes at point X than the inefficient system at point Y, even though the latter is doing nothing that is overtly harmful. The inefficient system does worse because it falls short in utilizing beneficial health practices — errors of omission, not commission. At point X on the curve, the efficient system forgoes some potentially valuable spending (between X and C) but still ends up at a higher level of health than at Y.
At a point in time, any statistical comparison between X and Y will show a negative association between spending and health outcomes, as shown by the dashed green line between the two curves. Indeed, one might conclude from cross-sectional data that spending more harms individual patients. In the case shown in Figure 1, however, cutting spending in health system Y back to the level of system X would result in worse outcomes. However, system Y could save money without sacrificing health by shifting up to the higher curve — substituting more cost-effective health services for less cost-effective health services.
Figure 2Figure 2
Expenditures and Health Outcomes According to Various Production Functions. displays the relationship between expenditures and outcomes among various providers (shown by the circles) in managing a hypothetical condition. This picture, which is consistent with empirical data from a variety of studies, shows little or no association between spending and health outcomes. One might find in such a seemingly random scatter plot either a positive or negative (or no) association, but the wide variations in both expenditures and outcomes suggest that factors other than spending itself must be affecting outcomes. In particular, this kind of pattern can be generated by wide variations in the use of interventions that are cost-effective (good value for the money) and those that are cost-ineffective (flat-of-the-curve interventions). Differences in the skill levels of providers or administrative efficiency might also contribute to the variation.To provide some structure to the scatter plot, we can distinguish between two types of providers: those who are close to the more cost-effective curve, F1 (blue circles), and others who are close to the less cost-effective curve, F2 (green circles). Some of the differences in outcomes, at any level of spending, arise because some providers utilize a more cost-effective mix of services than others.
Empirical support for Figure 2 comes from a recent study24 that used chart-review data from the 1994–1995 Cooperative Cardiovascular Project to categorize hospitals as either high-adopting facilities or low-adopting facilities, according to their rates of use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and coronary reperfusion in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. The researchers found that the high-adopting hospitals had consistently better rates of risk-adjusted survival, at no additional cost to Medicare. But after stratification according to the hospitals' adoption rates, there was a positive but diminishing effect of spending on the health outcome (12-month survival), similar to curves F1 and F2 in Figure 2. The cost-effectiveness ratios at the margin were $95,000 per life-year or more but with slightly better returns for the hospitals that were slower to adopt cost-effective practices (curve F2).
Another study showed that regions that had high rates of revascularization for patients with acute myocardial infarction received good health value for the expenditure on the intervention.25 Despite this, there was essentially a zero association between spending and outcomes across regions. The explanation is that the high-revascularization areas were also less likely to use beta-blockers and aspirin for their patients. Thus, like the region represented by point Y in Figure 1, they started out with poorer outcomes because of their failure to adopt cost-effective interventions, but they caught up to the other regions by devoting more resources to invasive interventions that were more expensive yet reasonably cost-effective.
A third example comes from a study of colon-cancer treatment, in which once again there was no association between overall spending and outcomes.26 The authors found greater use of inappropriate chemotherapy in high-spending areas, where adverse effects shifted the providers down from outputs that were more efficient (F1) to those that were less efficient (F2). However, these providers were also more likely to use highly appropriate (yet expensive) adjuvant chemotherapy, which would move them along and up the F2 curve, resulting in no difference in overall outcomes from the lower-intensity areas, despite the higher cost.
As Figure 2 illustrates, the apparent lack of correlation at the aggregate level between health spending and outcomes does not disprove the existence of a positive association within a hospital or other health care delivery organization. Moreover, a negative association does not imply that more spending is harmful. That said, there are undoubtedly treatments — such as testing of prostate-specific antigen levels in older men with limited life expectancy,27 arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee,28 and ventricular reconstruction surgery29 — that offer no measurable value and could be scaled back without compromising outcomes. And there are many more therapies for which the comparative effectiveness is unknown.
Getting to the Win–Win Balance
Is it possible to contain health care costs without causing worse health outcomes? The answer, we suggest, is no and yes. If health delivery areas that are expensive and inefficient were to cut back without reordering their priorities from less to more cost-effective services, then they, too, could have worse outcomes. Thus, if Medicare spending per enrollee in Miami ($16,351 in 2006) were cut back to the national average ($8,304), the residents of Miami might suffer if health care providers cut back on cost-effective as well as ineffective treatments. If the expensive technologies that they use compensate, in part, for their failure to utilize cost-effective primary or secondary preventive services, as suggested by the previously mentioned study of survival after revascularization,25 then these areas may have even greater losses in outcome than the efficient areas would if they cut back on the same services. But the answer is also yes — we can save money without compromising outcomes — if we can induce providers to cut back on cost-ineffective services and replace them with more cost-effective but underutilized services.
There are many other approaches to improving quality of care that may or may not yield large cost savings but are still worth doing. The use of electronic medical records has the potential to reduce medical errors, thereby reducing costs and improving outcomes simultaneously. Improving coordination of care has the potential to reduce duplication of services, reduce administrative waste, and improve outcomes. Shared decision making can ensure that patients actually want invasive procedures, thereby reducing costs without compromising patients' well-being.30 Coupled with policies that shift resources away from cost-ineffective interventions, such innovations can result in a win–win situation: lower costs and better outcomes.
At some point, however, we will have to confront the problem of cost-effectiveness at the level of the patient. The limitless pipeline of effective clinical strategies — biologic drugs (e.g., etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis, imatinib for chronic myelogenous leukemia, and trastuzumab for breast cancer), enhanced imaging tests, and personalized medicine — offers improved outcomes, but the costs of development and production are often very high. Even if all hospitals, medical practices, and health plans became efficient in the sense that they adopted all interventions that are more cost-effective than anything they currently do, they would still have to draw the line on expenditures somewhere. There are trade-offs — reallocating resources from cost-ineffective treatments for late-stage pancreatic cancer to cost-effective treatments for diabetes may improve health outcomes in the aggregate but not for patients with late-stage pancreatic cancer.
Most industrialized countries have already confronted cost-effectiveness. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) requires cost-effectiveness analyses of selected medical technologies as part of the basis for their coverage recommendations to the National Health Service in England and Wales, and it applies a criterion of £30,000 per QALY or less. Yet even in Britain, there are increasing complaints about denial of expensive but effective treatments for life-threatening conditions, such as metastatic cancers. As a result, NICE has implemented a compassionate care exception to the £30,000-per-QALY criterion for proven effective treatments of patients with a very poor prognosis.
Americans have less tolerance for command-and-control regulation than those in many other countries, so it is unlikely that a NICE-style structure of explicit rationing will be acceptable to Congress and the American people. On the other hand, Americans appear to be more accepting than Europeans of the role of price in allocating health care. Even conservative health economists who decry the possibility of rationing believe that reductions in health care utilization are acceptable if they occur through free choice in response to the price mechanism.31 Physicians and hospitals could be paid higher levels of compensation for more cost-effective services relative to their costs but lower levels of payment at or below cost for less cost-effective services. Consumers in many health plans are already used to higher copayments for prescriptions in higher tiers, so such stratification could be explicitly linked to cost-effectiveness.
Implementing value-based reimbursement or copayments is not without challenges. For example, many inexpensive drugs are cost-effective on average but ineffective for a minority of patients for whom only a more expensive drug is effective. To overcome the challenge of micromanaging prices according to characteristics of patients, price options could be offered to patients at the stage when they sign up for their insurance; a lower-cost insurance option might start patients on inexpensive drugs and switch them to more expensive drugs only if necessary, whereas a higher-cost option might provide immediate access to higher-cost drugs or to treatments without proven effectiveness. Any incentive schemes, whether linked to payments for individual services or to bundles of services through insurance packages, are subject to the caveat that patients may make unwise or irrational decisions.
If we can induce hospitals and health plans to improve efficiency and not just cut costs, then health costs in the United States will come down and outcomes will improve. Although it is necessary to confront the trade-off between cost and outcome at the margin, we can have our cake and eat it too if we induce inefficient providers to adopt cost-effective health practices instead of cost-ineffective ones.
Supported by a grant (PO1-AG19783, to Dr. Skinner) from the National Institute of Aging and by institutional sabbatical research funds from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (to Dr. Weinstein).
Financial and other disclosures provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
This article (10.1056/NEJMsb0911104) was published on January 6, 2010, at NEJM.org.
We thank Douglas Staiger, Elliott Fisher, and James Weinstein for their advice and intellectual support.
Source Information
From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (M.C.W.); the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (M.C.W., J.A.S.); and the Department of Economics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH (J.A.S.).
- References
References
1
American College of Physicians
Web of Science | Medline2
Garber AM . A menu without prices. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:964-966
Web of Science | Medline3
U.S. to compare medical treatments. New York Times, February 15, 2009:A1.
4
Fisher ES ,Wennberg DE ,Stukel TA ,Gottlieb DJ ,Lucas FL ,Pinder EL . The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: Health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:288-298
Web of Science | Medline5
Baicker K ,Chandra A . Medicare spending, the physician workforce, and beneficiaries' quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood)2004;W184-W197
Medline6
Skinner J, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. The efficiency of Medicare. In: Wise D, ed. Analyses in the economics of aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005:129-57.
7
Ong MK ,Mangione CM ,Romano PS , et al. Looking forward, looking back: assessing variations in hospital resource use and outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:548-557
CrossRef | Web of Science8
Thompson D ,Taylor DC ,Montoya EL ,Winer EP ,Jones SE ,Weinstein MC . Cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane following 2 to 3 years of therapy with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Value Health 2007;10:367-376
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Sanders GD ,Hlatky MA ,Owens DK . Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1471-1480
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline10
Tosteson AN ,Lurie JD ,Tosteson TD , et al. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:845-853
Web of Science | Medline11
Elkin EB ,Weinstein MC ,Winer EP ,Kuntz KM ,Schnitt SJ ,Weeks JC . HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:854-863
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Miksad RA ,Schnipper L ,Goldstein M . Does a statistically significant survival benefit of erlotinib plus gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer translate into clinical significance and value? J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4506-4508
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Mahadevia PJ ,Fleisher LA ,Frick KD ,Eng J ,Goodman SN ,Powe NR . Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 2003;289:313-322
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry. The Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. (Accessed January 4, 2010, at http://www.tufts-nemc.org/cearegistry.)
15
Cohen JT ,Neumann PJ ,Weinstein MC . Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. N Engl J Med 2008;358:661-663
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline16
Kim JJ ,Wright TC ,Goldie SJ . Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382-2390
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Moore MJ ,Goldstein D ,Hamm J , et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1960-1966
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Weinstein MC. Spending health care dollars wisely: can cost-effectiveness analysis help? 16th Annual Herbert Lourie Memorial Lecture on Health Policy. Policy brief no. 30. Syracuse, NY: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, 2005.
19
Russell LB ,Gold MR ,Siegel JE ,Daniels N ,Weinstein MC . The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1172-1177
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Stukel TA ,Lucas FL ,Wennberg DE . Long-term outcomes of regional variations in intensity of invasive vs medical management of Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2005;293:1329-1337
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
McGlynn EA ,Asch SM ,Adams J , et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2635-2645
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline22
National Healthcare Quality Report 2007. Washington, DC: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2008. (AHRQ publication number 08-0040.)
23
Fuchs VR. Who shall live? Health, economics, and social choice. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
24
Skinner J, Staiger D. Technology diffusion and productivity growth in health care. Working paper no. 14865. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2009. (Accessed December 30, 2009, at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/documents/SkinnerStaigerw14865.pdf.)
25
Chandra A ,Staiger D . Productivity spillovers in healthcare: evidence from the treatment of heart attacks. J Polit Econ 2007;115:103-140
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Landrum MB ,Meara ER ,Chandra A ,Guadagnoli E ,Keating NL . Is spending more always wasteful? The appropriateness of care and outcomes among colorectal cancer patients. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:159-168
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Walter LC ,Bertenthal D ,Lindquist K ,Konety BR . PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA 2006;296:2336-2342
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Kirkley A ,Birmingham TB ,Litchfield RB , et al. A randomized trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1097-1107
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline29
Jones RH ,Velazquez EJ ,Michler RE , et al. Coronary bypass surgery with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1705-1717
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline30
O'Connor AM ,Llewellyn-Thomas HA ,Flood AB . Modifying unwarranted variations in health care: shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Aff (Millwood)2004;VAR63-VAR72
Web of Science | Medline31
Feldstein M. Obama's plan isn't the answer. Washington Post. July 27, 2009.
- Citing Articles (38)
Citing Articles
1
Varun Puri, Traves D. Crabtree, Steven Kymes, Martin Gregory, Jennifer Bell, Jeffrey D. Bradley, Clifford Robinson, G. Alexander Patterson, Daniel Kreisel, Alexander S. Krupnick, Bryan F. Meyers. (2012) A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients: A decision analysis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 143:2, 428-436
CrossRef2
Kenneth PH Pritzker, Laura B Pritzker. (2012) Bioinformatics advances for clinical biomarker development. Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics 6:1, 39-48
CrossRef3
Carole Farley-Toombs. (2012) The Stigma of a Psychiatric Diagnosis: Prevalence, Implications and Nursing Interventions in Clinical Care Settings. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America
CrossRef4
2011. Can Research Guide Us to Improved Care at Lower Costs?. , 131-146.
CrossRef5
David J. Sher, Jon O. Wee, Rinaa S. Punglia. (2011) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Radiofrequency Ablation for Medically Inoperable, Early-Stage Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 81:5, e767-e774
CrossRef6
Aine Marie Kelly, Paul Cronin. (2011) Rationing and Health Care Reform: Not a Question of If, but When. Journal of the American College of Radiology 8:12, 830-837
CrossRef7
Larry A. Allen. (2011) End-Point Selection for Acute Heart Failure Trials. Heart Failure Clinics 7:4, 481-495
CrossRef8
Paul J. Kokorowski, Jonathan C. Routh, Joseph G. Borer, Carlos R. Estrada, Stuart B. Bauer, Caleb P. Nelson. (2011) Screening for Malignancy After Augmentation Cystoplasty in Children With Spina Bifida: A Decision Analysis. The Journal of Urology 186:4, 1437-1443
CrossRef9
S. J. Goldie, N. Daniels. (2011) Model-Based Analyses to Compare Health and Economic Outcomes of Cancer Control: Inclusion of Disparities. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:18, 1373-1386
CrossRef10
Sean A. McGhee. (2011) How the practice of allergy shows the promise and challenge of personalized medicine. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism 104:1-2, 3-6
CrossRef11
Avidan, Michael S., Jacobsohn, Eric, Glick, David, Burnside, Beth A., Zhang, Lini, Villafranca, Alex, Karl, Leah, Kamal, Saima, Torres, Brian, O'Connor, Michael, Evers, Alex S., Gradwohl, Stephen, Lin, Nan, Palanca, Ben J., Mashour, George A., . (2011) Prevention of Intraoperative Awareness in a High-Risk Surgical Population. New England Journal of Medicine 365:7, 591-600
Full Text12
Martina Garau, Koonal K. Shah, Anne R. Mason, Qing Wang, Adrian Towse, Michael F. Drummond. (2011) Using QALYs in Cancer. PharmacoEconomics 29:8, 673-685
CrossRef13
Patrick Vavken, Thomas Bianchi. (2011) In Brief: Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Orthopaedics. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 469:8, 2395-2398
CrossRef14
Judy T. Zerzan, Mark Gibson, Anne M. Libby. (2011) Improving State Medicaid Policies With Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Key Role for Academic Health Centers. Academic Medicine 86:6, 695-700
CrossRef15
Alexander Iribarne, Rachel Easterwood, Mark J. Russo, Y. Claire Wang. (2011) Integrating Economic Evaluation Methods Into Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium Comparative Effectiveness Educational Goals. Academic Medicine 86:6, 701-705
CrossRef16
Amitabh Chandra, Anupam B Jena, Jonathan S Skinner. (2011) The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25:2, 27-46
CrossRef17
Ronald F. van Vollenhoven. (2011) Unresolved issues in biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Nature Reviews Rheumatology 7:4, 205-215
CrossRef18
Jay Requarth. (2011) Image-Guided Palliative Care Procedures. Surgical Clinics of North America 91:2, 367-402
CrossRef19
David B. Adams. (2011) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Quality-adjusted Life-Years after Pancreatic Cancer Surgery. World Journal of Surgery 35:3, 473-474
CrossRef20
Michael S. Broder, Eunice Y. Chang, Tanya G.K. Bentley, Timothy Juday, Jonathan Uy. (2011) Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics 14:2, 167-178
CrossRef21
Victor R. Grann, Priya R. Patel, Judith S. Jacobson, Ellen Warner, Daniel F. Heitjan, Maxine Ashby-Thompson, Dawn L. Hershman, Alfred I. Neugut. (2011) Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 125:3, 837-847
CrossRef22
Lauren E. Cipriano, Barrett G. Levesque, Gregory S. Zaric, Edward V. Loftus, William J. Sandborn. (2011) Cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies to reduce radiation-induced cancer risk in Crohn's disease. Inflammatory Bowel Diseasesn/a-n/a
CrossRef23
Lynn L DeBar, Charles Elder, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Mikel Aickin, Rick Deyo, Richard Meenan, John Dickerson, Jennifer A Webster, Bobbi Jo Yarborough. (2011) Acupuncture and chiropractic care for chronic pain in an integrated health plan: a mixed methods study. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 11:1, 118
CrossRef24
Elliott Fisher, Jonathan Skinner. (2010) Comment on Silber et al.: Aggressive Treatment Styles and Surgical Outcomes. Health Services Research 45:6p2, 1893-1902
CrossRef25
D K Burns. (2010) Developing Pharmacogenetic Evidence Throughout Clinical Development. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 88:6, 867-870
CrossRef26
Lieven Annemans, Irina Cleemput, Steven Simoens, Francis Arickx, Frank Hulstaert, Marc Bogaert. (2010) The increasing role of health economic evaluations in drug development. Drug Development Research 71:8, 457-462
CrossRef27
M. D. Zilberberg, A. F. Shorr. (2010) Understanding cost-effectiveness. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 16:12, 1707-1712
CrossRef28
Jonathan C. Routh, Marc R. Laufer, Glenn M. Cannon, David A. Diamond, Patricio C. Gargollo. (2010) Management Strategies for Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Related Vaginal Agenesis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The Journal of Urology 184:5, 2116-2122
CrossRef29
Neumann, Peter J., Weinstein, Milton C., . (2010) Legislating against Use of Cost-Effectiveness Information. New England Journal of Medicine 363:16, 1495-1497
Full Text30
Isao Kamae. (2010) Value-Based Approaches to Healthcare Systems and Pharmacoeconomics Requirements in Asia. PharmacoEconomics 28:10, 831-838
CrossRef31
Dave Nellesen, Howard G. Birnbaum, Paul E. Greenberg. (2010) Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research. PharmacoEconomics 28:10, 789-798
CrossRef32
David J Sher. (2010) Cost–effectiveness studies in radiation therapy. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 10:5, 567-582
CrossRef33
John A. Vernon, Joseph H. Golec, J. Stedman Stevens. (2010) Comparative Effectiveness Regulations and Pharmaceutical Innovation. PharmacoEconomics 28:10, 877-887
CrossRef34
R. J. Glassock. (2010) Health care reforms in America: perspectives, comparisons and realities. QJM 103:9, 709-714
CrossRef35
Stephen P. Fitzgerald, Nigel G. Bean. (2010) An Analysis of the Interactions Between Individual Comorbidities and Their Treatments—Implications for Guidelines and Polypharmacy. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 11:7, 475-484
CrossRef36
Temel, Jennifer S., Greer, Joseph A., Muzikansky, Alona, Gallagher, Emily R., Admane, Sonal, Jackson, Vicki A., Dahlin, Constance M., Blinderman, Craig D., Jacobsen, Juliet, Pirl, William F., Billings, J. Andrew, Lynch, Thomas J., . (2010) Early Palliative Care for Patients with Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 363:8, 733-742
Full Text37
Young-Wan Kim, Nam-Kyu Kim. (2010) Comparative-Effectiveness Research to Standardize Retrieved Nodes for Quality Control in Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Surgery 252:1, 203
CrossRef38
Kane, Robert C., . (2010) Comparative Effectiveness and Health Care Spending. New England Journal of Medicine 362:19, 1845-1846
Full Text
