Update: Research report: Do newer prescription drugs pay for themselves? A reassessment of the evidence

Health Affairs

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 880-886

  Zhang, Yuting ^a   Soumerai, Stephen B ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG THERAPY; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; TIME; UNITED STATES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG THERAPY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34248539393     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 02782715     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.880     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Predicted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "National Health Expenditure Projections 2006-2016," http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2006.pdf (accessed 14 March 2007).
2. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "Prescription Drug Trends Fact Sheet-June 2006 Update," http://www.kff.org/rxdrugs/3057.cfm (accessed 14 March 2007).
3. S.B. Soumerai, "Benefits and Risks of Increasing Restrictions on Access to Costly Drugs in Medicaid," Health Affairs 23, no. 1 (2004): 135-146.
4. Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority, "PBS Pricing," http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/ PBS+Pricing-1 (accessed 14 March 2007).
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, April 2004, http://www.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=201973 (accessed 7 February 2007).
6. Low-molecular-weight heparin was compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Diagnosis and Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, Pub. no. 03-E016, January 2003, http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/dvttp.htm (accessed 7 February 2007).
7. Inhaled corticosteroids were comparedwith beta-2 agonists for children with moderate asthma. AHRQ, Management of Chronic Asthma, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment no. 01-E044, September 2001, http://www.ahrq.gov/ clinic/tp/asthmatp.htm (accessed 7 February 2007).
8. F.R. Lichtenberg, "Are the Benefits of Newer Drugs Worth Their Cost? Evidence from the 1996 MEPS," Health Affairs 20, no. 5 (2001): 241-251;
9. and F.R. Lichtenberg, "Benefits and Costs of Newer Drugs: An Update," NBER Working Paper no. 8996 (Cambridge, Mass.:National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002).
10. As of 22 June 2006, according to Google Scholar, this work has been cited eighty-six times in peer reviewed journal articles. The terms "Lichtenberg" and "newer drugs" resulted in fifty-six hits in government Web sites, according to a Google government search.
11. Congressional Budget Office, Issues in Designing a Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare, October 2002, http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index= 3960&sequence=0 (accessed 16 March 2007).
12. "Foreign Government Pharmaceutical Price and Access Controls," Submission by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to the Department of Commerce, 2004, http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/health/phRMA/ phRMA%20Response.pdf, (accessed 27 September 2006).
13. AHRQ, MEPS data description, http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb (accessed 14 March 2007).
14. Lichtenberg, "Are the Benefits of Newer Drugs Worth Their Cost?"
15. Lichtenberg, "Benefits and Costs of Newer Drugs."
16. We are grateful to Frank Lichtenberg for sharing these data.
17. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, "CDER Drug and Biologic Approval Reports," 28 September 2006, http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/default.htm (accessed 7 February 2007).
18. G.E. Miller, J.F. Moeller, and R.S. Stafford, "New Cardiovascular Drugs: Patterns of Use and Association with Non-Drug Health Expenditures," Inquiry 42, no. 4 (2005-06): 397-412.
19. F.R. Lichtenberg, "Letter to the Editor," Inquiry 43, no. 1 (2006): 80-82;
20. S. Schneeweiss et al., "Performance of Comorbidity Scores to Control for Confounding in Epidemiologic Studies Using Claims Data," American Journal of Epidemiology 154, no. 9 (2001): 854-864;
21. and S. Schneeweiss et al., "Consistency of Performance Ranking of Comorbidity Adjustment Scores in Canadian and U.S. Utilization Data," Journal of General Internal Medicine 19, no. 5, Part 1 (2004): 444-450.
22. W.G. Manning and J. Mullahy, "Estimating Log Models: To Transform or Not to Transform?" Journal of Health Economics 20, no. 4 (2001): 461-494.
23. These costs are those associated with a one-unit increase in the age of a drug (measured by logarithm of drug ages).
24. Of the two model specifications tested, a generalized linear model fits the data better, so we present findings for this model instead of the two-part model.
25. We also did a specification check by adding in interactions between condition and drug age. The results imply different drug-offset effects across medical conditions and raise further questions about the validity of aggregate analysis.
26. T.D. Cook and D.T. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979), 37-94.
27. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, http://www.tufts-nemc.org/ cearegistry (accessed 13March 2007).
28. National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Education Foundation, "Prescription Drug and Mass Media Advertising," 2000, http://www.nihcm.org/DTCbrief2001.pdf (accessed 23 September 2006).
29. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group, "Major Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Calcium Channel Blocker vs. Diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial," Journal of the American Medical Association 288, no. 23 (2002): 2981-2997.