title: Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care.
abstract: The United States aspires to use information from comparative effectiveness research (CER) to reduce waste and contain costs without instituting a formal rationing mechanism or compromising patient or physician autonomy with regard to treatment choices. With such ambitious goals, traditional combinations of research designs and analytical methods used in CER may lead to disappointing results. In this paper, I study how alternate regimes of comparative effectiveness information help shape the marginal benefits (demand) curve in the population and how such perceived demand curves impact decision-making at the individual patient level and welfare at the societal level. I highlight the need to individualize comparative effectiveness research in order to generate the true (normative) demand curve for treatments. I discuss methodological principles that guide research designs for such studies. Using an example of the comparative effect of substance abuse treatments on crime, I use novel econometric methods to salvage individualized information from an existing dataset.
authors: Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357660, Seattle, WA 98195-7660, USA. basua@uw.edu
authors: Anirban
authors: A
authors: Basu
references: J Health Econ. 2005 Nov;24(6):1132-53
references: 15950301
references: Health Econ. 2008 Aug;17(8):927-46
references: 17992708
references: JAMA. 2003 Sep 24;290(12):1624-32
references: 14506122
references: Med Decis Making. 2009 Nov-Dec;29(6):NP9-NP11
references: 19959807
references: Am J Manag Care. 2001 Sep;7(9):861-7
references: 11570020
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Mar-Apr;26(2):w195-203
references: 17264100
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):799-806
references: 18767899
references: Subst Use Misuse. 2000 May-Jun;35(6-8):971-1014
references: 10847219
references: N Engl J Med. 2009 May 7;360(19):1925-7
references: 19420360
references: Med Decis Making. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):112-27
references: 17409362
references: Stat Med. 2005 May 30;24(10):1455-81
references: 15586395
references: Addiction. 2003 Dec;98(12):1647-59
references: 14651494
references: J Health Econ. 1990;9(4):447-61
references: 10170706
references: J Health Econ. 2008 Dec;27(6):1407-17
references: 18760850
references: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002 Dec;23(4):261-71
references: 12495788
references: Schizophr Bull. 2003;29(1):15-31
references: 12908658
references: J Health Econ. 1996 Oct;15(5):641-53
references: 10164046
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):843-53
references: 20831292
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):w346-57
references: 19240055
references: Health Serv Res. 2002 Apr;37(2):433-55
references: 12036002
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 13;96(8):4730-4
references: 10200330
references: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Jan 7;73(1):41-50
references: 14687958
references: Milbank Q. 1996;74(1):51-85
references: 8596524
references: J Health Econ. 1996 Oct;15(5):609-39
references: 10164045
references: J Health Econ. 2013 Jan;32(1):172-80
references: 23202262
references: Subst Use Misuse. 2001 Oct;36(12):1749-51, 1753-7
references: 11758821
references: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004 Oct;27(3):253-63
references: 15501378
references: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002 Jun;59(6):538-44
references: 12044196