Abstract
When a major study finds that a widely used medical treatment is no better than a less expensive alternative, do physicians stop using it? Policymakers hope that comparative effectiveness research will identify less expensive substitutes for widely-used treatments, but physicians may be reluctant to abandon profitable therapies. We examine the impact of the COURAGE trial, which found that medical therapy is as effective as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with stable angina, on practice patterns. Using hospital discharge data from US community, Veterans Administration, and English hospitals, we detect a moderate decline in PCI volume post-COURAGE. However, many patients with stable angina continue to receive PCI. We do not find differences in PCI volume trends by reimbursement scheme or hospitals' teaching status, ownership, or degree of vertical integration.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
