Comparative effectiveness research (CER)--in which two or more medical treatments, including pharmaceuticals, are compared--is now widely viewed as an essential tool for cutting health care costs. Yet current research has done little to address whether CER is likely to reduce costs without sacrificing the quality of care. At this event, University of Chicago economist Tomas J. Philipson presented his analysis (with Anirban Basu) of one of the largest CER studies yet conducted: the CATIE study of antipsychotics. These drugs, which are used mainly to treat schizophrenia, are an important component of Medicaid spending. Finding that patients do not all react the same way to older antipsychotics and newer, more expensive ones, the authors explained why reimbursement policies based on "one size fits all" CER results can reduce patient welfare while failing to save taxpayer money.

Discussing CER analysis, the CATIE findings, and the balance between government savings through the use of cheaper pharmaceuticals versus reductions in quality of life were Sean Tunis, former chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Bryan Luce, a widely published researcher on the clinical effects of pharmaceuticals.