Is medical research cost effective? Response to Murphy and Topel

Perspect Biol Med. 2003 Summer;46(3 Suppl):S129-37.

Abstract

The paper explores the relationship between medical innovation and cost of treatment. The methodology used by Murphy and Topel to calculate the statistical value of a life is examined. The authors discuss possible confounding factors, such as the general trend of decreasing mortality, and consider the possibility that non-medical sources, especially the decrease in tobacco use, may explain much of the decrease in mortality rates. The authors suggest an alternative to Murphy and Topel's population-level model for assessing the benefits of medical technology, based on Lewis Thomas' categorization of three levels of technology: non-technology ("caring"), half-way technology (does not reverse or prevent the underlying problem), and high technology (preventative or curative). The categories are applied to the example of type 1 diabetes mellitus, in which quality of life and mortality improvements are clearly the result of technological changes and not behavioral modifications. The authors emphasize the cost-effectiveness of high technology, which is based on medical research advances.

Publication types

  • Comment
  • Comparative Study
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Biomedical Research / economics*
  • Cardiovascular Diseases / mortality
  • Cardiovascular Diseases / therapy
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / mortality
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / therapy
  • Female
  • Health Care Costs*
  • Humans
  • Longevity*
  • Male
  • Mortality / trends
  • Quality of Life*
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • United States