ABSTRACT
Opioids play an outsized role in America's drug problems, but they also play a critically important role in medicine. Thus, they deserve special attention. Illegally manufactured opioids (such as fentanyl) are involved in a majority of U.S. drug overdoses, but the problems are broader and deeper than drug fatalities. Depending on the drugs involved, there can be myriad physical and mental health consequences associated with having a substance use disorder. And it is not just those using drugs who suffer. Substance use and related behaviors can significantly affect individuals' families, friends, employers, and wider communities. Efforts to address problems related to opioids are insufficient and sometimes contradictory. Researchers provide a nuanced assessment of America's opioid ecosystem, highlighting how leveraging system interactions can reduce addiction, overdose, suffering, and other harms. At the core of the opioid ecosystem are the individuals who use opioids and their families. Researchers also include detail on ten major components of the opioid ecosystem: substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction, medical care, the criminal legal system, illegal supply and supply control, first responders, the child welfare system, income support and homeless services, employment, and education. The primary audience for this study is policymakers, but it should also be useful for foundations looking for opportunities to create change that have often been overlooked. This study can help researchers better consider the full consequences of policy changes and help members of the media identify the dynamics of interactions that deserve more attention.
ABSTRACT
New medical technologies are a leading driver of U.S. health care spending. This article identifies promising policy options to change which medical technologies are created, with two related policy goals: (1) Reduce total health care spending with the smallest possible loss of health benefits, and (2) ensure that new medical products that increase spending are accompanied by health benefits that are worth the spending increases. The analysis synthesized information from peer-reviewed and other literature, a panel of technical advisors convened for the project, and 50 one-on-one expert interviews. The authors also conducted case studies of eight medical products. The following features of the U.S. health care environment tend to increase spending without also conferring major health benefits: lack of basic scientific knowledge about some disease processes, costs and risks of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, limited rewards for medical products that could lower spending, treatment creep, and the medical arms race. The authors identified ten policy options that would help advance the two policy goals. Five would do so by reducing the costs and/or risks of invention and obtaining FDA approval: (1) Enable more creativity in funding basic science, (2) offer prizes for inventions, (3) buy out patents, (4) establish a public-interest investment fund, and (5) expedite FDA reviews and approvals. The other five options would do so by increasing market rewards for products: (1) Reform Medicare payment policies, (2) reform Medicare coverage policies, (3) coordinate FDA approval and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coverage processes, (4) increase demand for technologies that decrease spending, and (5) produce more and more-timely technology assessments.
ABSTRACT
Limiting the growth of health care costs while improving population health is perhaps the most important and difficult challenge facing U.S. health policymakers. The role of innovation in advancing these social goals is controversial, with many seeing innovation as a major cause of cost growth and many others viewing innovation as crucial for improving the quality of care and health outcomes. The authors argue that mitigating the tension between improving health and controlling costs requires more-nuanced perspectives on innovation. More specifically, they argue that policymakers should carefully distinguish between innovative activities that are worth their social costs and activities that are not worth their social costs and try to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The article considers innovation in drugs, devices, and methods of delivering health care, with particular attention to delivery.
