TY - JOUR
T1 - The Returns to Medical Inventions
AU - Dranove, David
AU - Garthwaite, Craig
AU - Wu, Bingxiao
N1 - Funding Information:
The high costs of developing new procedures appear to be spread across numerous stakeholders. The research papers cited in support of CPT applications list any financial support from third parties. We find that, among the 17 procedures in our sample, all but one received funding from either industry (for example, medical device companies) or nonprofit organizations (for example, government agencies like the National Institutes of Health, universities, hospitals, and charitable foundations). In addition, some clinical trials could be covered by payers such as Medicare and private insurers.33
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/2022/6504-0042$10.00.
PY - 2022/11/1
Y1 - 2022/11/1
N2 - Medical innovation is perhaps the most important driver of health care spending and quality. Economists have studied pharmaceutical innovation for de-cades, and their findings have contributed to the debate about optimal Food and Drug Administration policy. Despite their importance to health care spending and value, there is no similar literature to inform an optimal regulation system for novel and valuable medical procedures. In this paper, we begin to fill this gap by documenting the incentives for developing medical procedures and the process through which they are approved for use. Drawing on the work of Sam Peltzman and George Stigler, we argue that the largely ad hoc system of rewards and review for medical procedures may explain the slow pace of innovation, particularly when compared with drug innovation.
AB - Medical innovation is perhaps the most important driver of health care spending and quality. Economists have studied pharmaceutical innovation for de-cades, and their findings have contributed to the debate about optimal Food and Drug Administration policy. Despite their importance to health care spending and value, there is no similar literature to inform an optimal regulation system for novel and valuable medical procedures. In this paper, we begin to fill this gap by documenting the incentives for developing medical procedures and the process through which they are approved for use. Drawing on the work of Sam Peltzman and George Stigler, we argue that the largely ad hoc system of rewards and review for medical procedures may explain the slow pace of innovation, particularly when compared with drug innovation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153107919&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85153107919&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1086/723416
DO - 10.1086/723416
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85153107919
SN - 0022-2186
VL - 65
SP - S389-S417
JO - Journal of Law and Economics
JF - Journal of Law and Economics
IS - S2
ER -