Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost?

Duncan Stuart Mortimer, Stuart James Peacock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1156 - 1162
Number of pages7
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume75
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Cite this

@article{0a64e577007548918511f8f175b9a537,
title = "Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost?",
abstract = "The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object.",
author = "Mortimer, {Duncan Stuart} and Peacock, {Stuart James}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.019",
language = "English",
volume = "75",
pages = "1156 -- 1162",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Pergamon",
number = "7",

}

Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost? / Mortimer, Duncan Stuart; Peacock, Stuart James.

In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 75, No. 7, 2012, p. 1156 - 1162.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost?

AU - Mortimer, Duncan Stuart

AU - Peacock, Stuart James

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object.

AB - The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object.

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.019

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.019

M3 - Article

VL - 75

SP - 1156

EP - 1162

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

IS - 7

ER -