Technology assessment and coverage decision making.

W T McGivney
{"title":"Technology assessment and coverage decision making.","authors":"W T McGivney","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the health care decision-making cascade, technology assessment renders the initial evaluative judgement about the contribution of a technology to patient care. As such, it has a major impact on coverage policy, clinical guidelines and utilization management. This impact necessitates that technology assessment have a scientific, defensible process. There are four basic components of a scientific, defensible process for both clinical and coverage decision making. These are: 1. Outcomes data that are derived preferably from controlled clinical trials and that support the safety and effectiveness of a specific indication 2. Evidence of acceptance by the practicing medical community of specific applications of a technology 3. A rigorous, evaluative process that synthesizes and analyzes outcomes data and expert opinion 4. Consistency in the use of terminology, as it is translated from the technology assessment process to coverage policy The process must be designed to assure scientific and methodological defensibility. Also, it must be designed to facilitate and substantiate the medical and coverage decision-making processes. Finally, it must be designed to enable and expedite the implementation of the managed care philosophy (i.e., outcomes-based decision making) within a particular health plan.</p>","PeriodicalId":79762,"journal":{"name":"AAPPO journal : the journal of the American Association of Preferred Provider Organizations","volume":"4 5","pages":"11-2, 14-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPPO journal : the journal of the American Association of Preferred Provider Organizations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the health care decision-making cascade, technology assessment renders the initial evaluative judgement about the contribution of a technology to patient care. As such, it has a major impact on coverage policy, clinical guidelines and utilization management. This impact necessitates that technology assessment have a scientific, defensible process. There are four basic components of a scientific, defensible process for both clinical and coverage decision making. These are: 1. Outcomes data that are derived preferably from controlled clinical trials and that support the safety and effectiveness of a specific indication 2. Evidence of acceptance by the practicing medical community of specific applications of a technology 3. A rigorous, evaluative process that synthesizes and analyzes outcomes data and expert opinion 4. Consistency in the use of terminology, as it is translated from the technology assessment process to coverage policy The process must be designed to assure scientific and methodological defensibility. Also, it must be designed to facilitate and substantiate the medical and coverage decision-making processes. Finally, it must be designed to enable and expedite the implementation of the managed care philosophy (i.e., outcomes-based decision making) within a particular health plan.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技术评估和覆盖决策。
在医疗保健决策级联中,技术评估对技术对患者护理的贡献做出初步评价判断。因此,它对覆盖政策、临床指南和使用管理具有重大影响。这种影响要求技术评估有一个科学的、可辩护的过程。对于临床和保险决策来说,科学的、可辩护的过程有四个基本组成部分。它们是:1;结果数据最好来自对照临床试验,并支持特定适应症的安全性和有效性。医学实践团体接受某一技术的特定应用的证据一个严格的评估过程,综合和分析结果数据和专家意见。术语使用的一致性,从技术评估过程转化为覆盖政策过程的设计必须确保科学和方法上的可辩护性。此外,它的设计必须促进和充实医疗和保险决策过程。最后,它的设计必须能够在特定的健康计划中实现和加快管理式医疗理念(即基于结果的决策)的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Managed eyecare: a vision for the future. The community pharmacist: delivering quality care and lower costs. Provider satisfaction: a critical element for the success of vision care plans. Who's giving managed care a bad name? Why oppose any willing provider legislation?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1