评估第三方医疗技术覆盖的过程。

Journal of health care technology Pub Date : 1984-01-01
S N Finkelstein, K A Isaacson, J J Frishkopf
{"title":"评估第三方医疗技术覆盖的过程。","authors":"S N Finkelstein,&nbsp;K A Isaacson,&nbsp;J J Frishkopf","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A detailed review of records and documentation considered more than 100 technology evaluations performed in conjunction with coverage decisions by the Medicare program and by a major Blue Cross/blue Shield plan. Medicare evaluations were highly structured, synthesizing thorough literature reviews, recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and other governmental agencies, and information solicited from medical specialty societies and independent practitioners; however, the material supplied by nongovernmental sources seldom influenced the coverage recommendations. In contrast, the Blue plan's evaluations were based largely on presentations and discussions at advisory committee meetings, after receiving informational inputs that were more limited than those used in Medicare evaluations. The fraction of technologies recommended for coverage was slightly over 50% for each carrier. If information was strongly positive about either a technology's safety, its effectiveness, or both, then coverage was nearly always recommended. Still, the carriers differed significantly in the stage of development of the practices evaluated and in their willingness to make a coverage decision in the face of both safety and effectiveness data that were regarded as tentative. Because coverage decisions, and the speed with which they are conducted, may be crucial to the rate of a technology's diffusion--and possibly even to the rate of innovation--the authors conclude that it is important to understand clearly the process by which this type of technology assessment is performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":80026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care technology","volume":"1 2","pages":"89-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The process of evaluating medical technologies for third-party coverage.\",\"authors\":\"S N Finkelstein,&nbsp;K A Isaacson,&nbsp;J J Frishkopf\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A detailed review of records and documentation considered more than 100 technology evaluations performed in conjunction with coverage decisions by the Medicare program and by a major Blue Cross/blue Shield plan. Medicare evaluations were highly structured, synthesizing thorough literature reviews, recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and other governmental agencies, and information solicited from medical specialty societies and independent practitioners; however, the material supplied by nongovernmental sources seldom influenced the coverage recommendations. In contrast, the Blue plan's evaluations were based largely on presentations and discussions at advisory committee meetings, after receiving informational inputs that were more limited than those used in Medicare evaluations. The fraction of technologies recommended for coverage was slightly over 50% for each carrier. If information was strongly positive about either a technology's safety, its effectiveness, or both, then coverage was nearly always recommended. Still, the carriers differed significantly in the stage of development of the practices evaluated and in their willingness to make a coverage decision in the face of both safety and effectiveness data that were regarded as tentative. Because coverage decisions, and the speed with which they are conducted, may be crucial to the rate of a technology's diffusion--and possibly even to the rate of innovation--the authors conclude that it is important to understand clearly the process by which this type of technology assessment is performed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care technology\",\"volume\":\"1 2\",\"pages\":\"89-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1984-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care technology","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

摘要

对记录和文件的详细审查考虑了100多项技术评估,这些评估与医疗保险计划和主要蓝十字/蓝盾计划的覆盖范围决定相结合。医疗保险评估是高度结构化的,综合了全面的文献综述、美国国立卫生研究院和其他政府机构的建议,以及从医学专业协会和独立从业者那里征求的信息;然而,非政府来源提供的材料很少影响报道建议。相比之下,蓝色计划的评估主要基于咨询委员会会议上的演讲和讨论,在收到信息输入之后,这些信息输入比医疗保险评估中使用的信息输入更有限。每个运营商推荐的覆盖技术比例略高于50%。如果信息对一项技术的安全性、有效性或两者中的任何一个都非常肯定,那么几乎总是建议进行报道。尽管如此,运营商在评估实践的发展阶段和他们在面对被视为试探性的安全性和有效性数据时做出覆盖决定的意愿方面存在显著差异。因为覆盖范围的决定,以及它们执行的速度,可能对技术的传播速度至关重要——甚至可能对创新速度至关重要——作者得出结论,清楚地理解这种类型的技术评估的执行过程是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The process of evaluating medical technologies for third-party coverage.

A detailed review of records and documentation considered more than 100 technology evaluations performed in conjunction with coverage decisions by the Medicare program and by a major Blue Cross/blue Shield plan. Medicare evaluations were highly structured, synthesizing thorough literature reviews, recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and other governmental agencies, and information solicited from medical specialty societies and independent practitioners; however, the material supplied by nongovernmental sources seldom influenced the coverage recommendations. In contrast, the Blue plan's evaluations were based largely on presentations and discussions at advisory committee meetings, after receiving informational inputs that were more limited than those used in Medicare evaluations. The fraction of technologies recommended for coverage was slightly over 50% for each carrier. If information was strongly positive about either a technology's safety, its effectiveness, or both, then coverage was nearly always recommended. Still, the carriers differed significantly in the stage of development of the practices evaluated and in their willingness to make a coverage decision in the face of both safety and effectiveness data that were regarded as tentative. Because coverage decisions, and the speed with which they are conducted, may be crucial to the rate of a technology's diffusion--and possibly even to the rate of innovation--the authors conclude that it is important to understand clearly the process by which this type of technology assessment is performed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Noninvasive bone mineral assessment. Is automated urinalysis in your laboratory's future? Swiss Hospital Institute's approach to the problems of magnetic resonance imaging. The legal system, insurance, and health care. What can be done about the liability problem? An ECRI technology management assessment. Reuse and reprocessing of disposable medical devices. Legal liability issues.
×
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