New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

High Price Tag on Meds May Boost Healing

Parkinson’s patients derived more benefits from a salt solution they were told was an expensive drug than from the same solution when it was described as being cheap medication. Karen Hopkin reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We often equate quality with cost. Even when it comes to healthcare. The more pricey a drug, the better it must be. 

And now a study finds that we even extend such financial assessment to placebos—people with Parkinson’s disease derived more benefits from a salt solution they were told was an expensive drug than from the same solution when it was described as being cheap medication. The research is in the journal Neurology. [Alberto J. Espay et al, Placebo effect of medication cost in Parkinson disease: A randomized double-blind study]

The placebo effect is well documented: people who think they’re receiving a real drug often improve, even when the treatment is just a sham. But why do placebos do anything, and why would one placebo have a greater effect than a different one? 

To examine whether the perceived cost could be a factor, researchers told 12 people with Parkinson’s that they would be receiving two formulations of a new medication. The patients believed that one version of the drug cost $100 a dose, while the other one cost 15 times as much.  

The results? Participants who started with the supposedly high-priced drug showed 28 percent greater improvement in motor skills than those who got the cheaper placebo first.

The findings could point the way toward strategies that enhance the effectiveness of any drug regimen…by making us think that the treatment we’re getting is the best that money can buy.

—Karen Hopkin 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe