Cited by 208Healthcare cost, quality, practicesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePharmaceutical Economics and Policy

The break-even point: when medical advances are less important than improving the fidelity with which they are delivered

Open access
Woolf, S. H.·2005·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

Society invests billions of dollars in the development of new drugs and technologies but comparatively little in the fidelity of health care, that is, improving systems to ensure the delivery of care to all patients in need. Using mathematical arguments and a nomogram, we demonstrate that technological advances must yield dramatic, often unrealistic increases in efficacy to do more good than could be accomplished by improving fidelity. In 2 examples (the development of anti-platelet agents and statins), we show that enhanced efficacy failed to achieve the health gains that would have occurred by delivering older agents to all eligible patients. Society's huge investment in technological innovations that only modestly improve efficacy, by consuming resources needed for improved delivery of care, may cost more lives than it saves. The misalignment of priorities is driven partly by the commercial interests of industry and by the public's appetite for technological breakthroughs, but health outcomes ultimately suffer. Health, economic, and moral arguments make the case for spending less on technological advances and more on improving systems for delivering care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.406

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Jones PH, Davidson MH, Stein EA, et al. Comparison of the effi cacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravas- tatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:152-160.
  2. Barnett M. Pill profi ts. US News and World Report. December 22, 2003;135:40.
  3. Smith R, Hiatt H, Berwick D. Shared ethical principles for every- body in health care: a working draft from the Tavistock group. BMJ. 1999;318:248-251.
  4. Coffi eld AB, Maciosek MV, McGinnis JM, et al. Priorities among rec- ommended clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:1-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woolf, S. H.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Woolf, S. H.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
545-552
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2100334459
Cited by
208
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 17
FWCI
29.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
health care delivery systems, drug efficacy, antiplatelet agents, statins, health gains, health care costs, health policy priorities, nomogram
MeSH terms
Biotechnology, Delivery of Health Care, Drug Therapy, Health Priorities, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Treatment Outcome, Resource Allocation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review