Literature DB >> 18954812

A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development.

Paul E Wallner1, Andre Konski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The rapid pace of the development and introduction to the marketplace of new medical technologies has been identified as one of the primary drivers of the increasing cost of health care delivery in the United States. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of the wide divergence of interests of the various stakeholders in contributing to the increasing cost of care.
METHODS: A literature review and analysis are performed to evaluate the primary and secondary cost drivers of health care technology costs in the United States.
RESULTS: Technology developers, health care providers, patients and family members, and payers are the primary drivers of health care costs. Technology developers, vendors, and investors look primarily to a rapid return on investment that can be achieved only by expeditious introduction, payment, and user acceptance. Health care providers who should be primarily interested in patient care and outcomes may also be driven by a legitimate belief in the improvements a new technology may offer, competitive behavior, reimbursement motives, or personal career and institutional ambition. Patients and family members are frequently driven by a sense that new is by definition better and that the most recently introduced technologies are superior to older, more tested modalities. Payers are motivated primarily by a desire to stabilize or reduce cost (and increase profitability).
CONCLUSION: Regardless of intentions or desires, it is increasingly apparent that the introduction of new technologies absent "significant evidence" that they are cost effective or add to the existing armamentarium places an increasing burden on a health care delivery system already stretched thin. These pressures have necessitated an increased level of interest in a variety of solutions to generate more appropriate and useful "evidence" of benefit. This discussion focuses on the emergence of a reimbursement methodology termed "coverage with evidence development" and how the radiation oncology and general oncology communities may participate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18954812     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  8 in total

Review 1.  How close are we in utilizing functional neuroimaging in routine clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain?

Authors:  David Borsook; Lino Becerra
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2011-06

2.  Health states of women after conservative surgery and radiation for breast cancer.

Authors:  Gary M Freedman; Tianyu Li; Penny R Anderson; Nicos Nicolaou; Andre Konski
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Factors affecting the implementation of complex and evolving technologies: multiple case study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Kate Bak; Mark J Dobrow; David Hodgson; Anthony Whitton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease.

Authors:  George Petrov; Sebastian Kelle; Eckart Fleck; Ernst Wellnhofer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 5.460

5.  The Effect of Social Norms on Physicians' Intentions to Use Liver Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Extended Theory of Planned Behavior.

Authors:  Qingwen Deng; Wenbin Liu
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2022-02-09

6.  Unblocking blockbusters: using boolean text-mining to optimise clinical trial design and timeline for novel anticancer drugs.

Authors:  Richard J Epstein
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2009-08-17

7.  Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: a framework to adapt a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program for other local settings.

Authors:  Paule Poulin; Lea Austen; Catherine M Scott; Michelle Poulin; Nadine Gall; Judy Seidel; René Lafrenière
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2013-11-18

8.  Awareness, Interest, and Preferences of Primary Care Providers in Using Point-of-Care Cancer Screening Technology.

Authors:  Chloe S Kim; Sarah Vanture; Margaret Cho; Catherine M Klapperich; Catharine Wang; Franklin W Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.