Harvard University, USA.
J Health Econ. 2013 Jan;32(1):172-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.10.002. Epub 2012 Oct 13.
Increased health care spending has placed pressure on public and private payers to prioritize spending. Cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis is the main tool used by payers to prioritize coverage of new therapies. We argue that reimbursement based on CE is subject to a form of the "Lucas critique"; the goals of CE policies may not materialize when firms affected by the policies respond optimally to them. For instance, because 'costs' in CE analysis reflect prices set optimally by firms rather than production costs, observed CE levels will depend on how firm pricing responds to CE policies. Observed CE is therefore endogenous. When CE is endogenously determined, policies aimed at lowering spending and improving overall CE may paradoxically raise spending and lead to the adoption of more resource-costly treatments. We empirically illustrate whether this may occur using data on public coverage decisions in the United Kingdom.
医疗保健支出的增加给公共和私人支付方带来了压力,要求他们优先考虑支出。成本效益分析(CE)是支付方优先考虑新疗法覆盖范围的主要工具。我们认为,基于 CE 的报销容易受到“卢卡斯批判”的影响;当受政策影响的公司做出最优反应时,CE 政策的目标可能无法实现。例如,由于 CE 分析中的“成本”反映的是公司最优定价,而不是生产成本,因此观察到的 CE 水平将取决于公司定价对 CE 政策的反应。因此,CE 是内生的。当 CE 是内生决定的时,旨在降低支出和提高整体 CE 的政策可能会产生悖论,导致支出增加,并导致采用资源成本更高的治疗方法。我们使用英国公共覆盖决策的数据来实证说明这种情况是否可能发生。