{"title":"Has pharmaceutical innovation reduced the average cost of U.S. health care episodes?","authors":"Frank R Lichtenberg","doi":"10.1007/s10754-023-09363-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A number of authors have argued that technological innovation has increased U.S. health care spending. We investigate the impact that pharmaceutical innovation had on the average cost of U.S. health care episodes during the period 2000-2014, using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Health Care Satellite Account and other sources. We analyze the relationship across approximately 200 diseases between the growth in the number of drugs that have been approved to treat the disease and the subsequent growth in the mean amount spent per episode of care, controlling for the growth in the number of episodes and other factors. Our estimates indicate that mean episode cost is not significantly related to the number of drugs ever approved 0-4 years before, but it is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 5-20 years before. This delay is consistent with the fact (which we document) that utilization of a drug is relatively low during the first few years after it was approved, and that some drugs may have to be consumed for several years to have their maximum impact on treatment cost. Our estimates of the effect of pharmaceutical innovation on the average cost of health care episodes are quite insensitive to the weights used and to whether we control for 3 covariates. Our most conservative estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1986-1999 reduced mean episode cost by 4.7%, and that the drugs approved during 1996-2009 reduced mean episode cost by 2.1%. If drug approvals did not affect the number of episodes, the drugs approved during 1986-1999 would have reduced 2014 medical expenditure by about $93 billion. However, drug approvals may have affected the number, as well as the average cost, of episodes. We also estimate models of hospital utilization. The number of hospital days is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 10-19 years before, controlling for the number of disease episodes. Our estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1984-1997 reduced the number of hospital days by 10.5%. The hospital cost reduction was larger than expenditure on the drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":44403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","volume":" ","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-023-09363-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A number of authors have argued that technological innovation has increased U.S. health care spending. We investigate the impact that pharmaceutical innovation had on the average cost of U.S. health care episodes during the period 2000-2014, using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Health Care Satellite Account and other sources. We analyze the relationship across approximately 200 diseases between the growth in the number of drugs that have been approved to treat the disease and the subsequent growth in the mean amount spent per episode of care, controlling for the growth in the number of episodes and other factors. Our estimates indicate that mean episode cost is not significantly related to the number of drugs ever approved 0-4 years before, but it is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 5-20 years before. This delay is consistent with the fact (which we document) that utilization of a drug is relatively low during the first few years after it was approved, and that some drugs may have to be consumed for several years to have their maximum impact on treatment cost. Our estimates of the effect of pharmaceutical innovation on the average cost of health care episodes are quite insensitive to the weights used and to whether we control for 3 covariates. Our most conservative estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1986-1999 reduced mean episode cost by 4.7%, and that the drugs approved during 1996-2009 reduced mean episode cost by 2.1%. If drug approvals did not affect the number of episodes, the drugs approved during 1986-1999 would have reduced 2014 medical expenditure by about $93 billion. However, drug approvals may have affected the number, as well as the average cost, of episodes. We also estimate models of hospital utilization. The number of hospital days is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 10-19 years before, controlling for the number of disease episodes. Our estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1984-1997 reduced the number of hospital days by 10.5%. The hospital cost reduction was larger than expenditure on the drugs.
期刊介绍:
The focus of the International Journal of Health Economics and Management is on health care systems and on the behavior of consumers, patients, and providers of such services. The links among management, public policy, payment, and performance are core topics of the relaunched journal. The demand for health care and its cost remain central concerns. Even as medical innovation allows providers to improve the lives of their patients, questions remain about how to efficiently deliver health care services, how to pay for it, and who should pay for it. These are central questions facing innovators, providers, and payers in the public and private sectors. One key to answering these questions is to understand how people choose among alternative arrangements, either in markets or through the political process. The choices made by healthcare managers concerning the organization and production of that care are also crucial. There is an important connection between the management of a health care system and its economic performance. The primary audience for this journal will be health economists and researchers in health management, along with the larger group of health services researchers. In addition, research and policy analysis reported in the journal should be of interest to health care providers, managers and policymakers, who need to know about the pressures facing insurers and governments, with consequences for regulation and mandates. The editors of the journal encourage submissions that analyze the behavior and interaction of the actors in health care, viz. consumers, providers, insurers, and governments. Preference will be given to contributions that combine theoretical with empirical work, evaluate conflicting findings, present new information, or compare experiences between countries and jurisdictions. In addition to conventional research articles, the journal will include specific subsections for shorter concise research findings and cont ributions to management and policy that provide important descriptive data or arguments about what policies follow from research findings. The composition of the editorial board is designed to cover the range of interest among economics and management researchers.Officially cited as: Int J Health Econ ManagFrom 2001 to 2014 the journal was published as International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. (Articles published in Vol. 1-14 officially cited as: Int J Health Care Finance Econ)