Person:

Chandra, Amitabh

The United States spends substantially more on health care than most developed countries, yet leaves a greater share of the population uninsured. We suggest that incremental insurance expansions focused on addressing market failures will propagate inefficiencies and are not likely to facilitate active policy decisions that align with societal coverage goals. By instead defining a basic bundle of services that is publicly financed for all, while allowing individuals to purchase additional coverage, policymakers could both expand coverage and maintain incentives for innovation, fostering universal access to innovative care in an affordable system.

Regulators of new products confront a tradeoff between speeding a new product to market and collecting additional product quality information. The FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) provides an opportunity to understand if a regulator can use new policy to innovate around this tradeoff—i.e., whether it improved regulator productivity by allowing products to come to market more quickly without compromising quality. We find that the BTD program shortened clinical development times by 23 percent and did not impact the ex post safety profile of drugs with the designation. In exploring mechanisms, we find that the BTD program had the greatest impact on less experienced firms and was associated with reduced BTD clinical trial design complexity. The results suggest that targeted regulatory innovation can shorten R&D periods without compromising the quality of new products.

Emerging gene therapy and gene-editing technologies will have a growing impact on patient lives and health-care delivery. We analyzed a decade of data on clinical trials and venture capital investments to understand the likely trajectory of genetically focused therapies in the years ahead. The number of clinical trials and venture capital deals increased substantially from 2006–2017. We observed particularly notable growth in both industry-sponsored trials and trials involving specialty fields of drug development, including oncology, neurology, hematology, ophthalmology, and neurology. As the number of gene-therapy and gene-editing technologies continues to grow, we expect that such therapies will have a significant and heterogeneous impact on health-care delivery, including a shifting of resources from chronic disease management to more intense acute episodic care, an increase in the complexity of required intellectual property and manufacturing know-how, and the potential expansion of biopharmaceutical companies into service-based business models.

There are widespread differences in total factor productivity across producers in the U.S. and around the world. To help explain these variations, we devise a general test for misallocation in input choices – the underuse of effective inputs and overuse of ineffective ones. Misallocation implies that conditional on total input use, the return to using a particular input is not zero (a positive return implies underuse, and a negative return implies overuse). We measure misallocation across hospitals, where inputs and outputs are better measured than in other industries. Applying our test to a sample of 1.6 million Medicare beneficiaries with heart attacks (of which 436 thousand were admitted by ambulance), we reject the hypothesis of productive efficiency; moving a patient from a 10th percentile to a 90th percentile hospital with respect to misallocation, holding spending constant, is predicted to increase survival by 3.1 percentage points. With misallocation accounting for as much as 25 percent of the variation in hospital productivity, our results suggest that how the money is spent, rather than how much money is spent, is central to understanding productivity differences both in health care, and in the rest of the economy.