Aaron L. Nelson, MD, PhD; Joshua T. Cohen, PhD; Dan Greenberg, PhD; David M. Kent, MD, MS
Under conditions of constrained resources, cost-saving innovations may improve overall outcomes, even when they are slightly less effective than available options, by permitting more efficient reallocation of resources. The authors systematically reviewed all MEDLINE-cited costâ€“utility analyses written in English from 2002 to 2007 to identify and describe cost- and quality-decreasing medical innovations that might offer favorable â€œdecrementallyâ€ cost-effective tradeoffsâ€”defined as saving at least $100Â 000 per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Of 2128 cost-effectiveness ratios from 887 publications, only 9 comparisons (0.4% of total) described 8 innovations that were deemed to be decrementally cost-effective. Examples included percutaneous coronary intervention (instead of coronary artery bypass graft) for multivessel coronary disease, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (instead of electroconvulsive therapy) for drug-resistant major depression, watchful waiting for inguinal hernias, and hemodialyzer sterilization and reuse. On a per-patient basis, these innovations yielded savings from $122 to almost $12Â 000 but losses of 0.001 to 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (approximately 8 hours to 1 week). These findings demonstrate the rarity of decrementally cost-effective innovations in the medical literature.
Learn more about subscription options.
Register Now for a free account.
Nelson AL, Cohen JT, Greenberg D, Kent DM. Much Cheaper, Almost as Good: Decrementally Cost-Effective Medical Innovation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:662-667. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-9-200911030-00011
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(9):662-667.
Healthcare Delivery and Policy.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2017 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only