Literature DB >> 20021589

Translating medical effectiveness research into policy: lessons from the California Health Benefits Review Program.

Janet M Coffman1, Mi-Kyung Hong, Wade M Aubry, Harold S Luft, Edward Yelin.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Legislatures and executive branch agencies in the United States and other nations are increasingly using reviews of the medical literature to inform health policy decisions. To clarify these efforts to give policymakers evidence of medical effectiveness, this article discusses the California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP). This program, based at the University of California, analyzes the medical effectiveness of health insurance benefit mandate bills for the California legislature, as well as their impact on cost and public health.
METHODS: This article is based on the authors' experience reviewing benefit mandate bills for CHBRP and findings from evaluations of the program. General observations are illustrated with examples from CHBRP's reports. Information about efforts to incorporate evidence into health policymaking in other states and nations was obtained through a review of published literature.
FINDINGS: CHBRP produces reports that California legislators, legislative staff, and other major stakeholders value and use routinely in deliberations about benefit mandate bills. Where available, the program relies on previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews to streamline the review of the medical literature. Faculty and staff responsible for the medical effectiveness sections of CHBRP's reports have learned four major lessons over the course of the program's six-year history: the need to (1) recognize the limitations of the medical literature, (2) anticipate the need to inform legislators about the complexity of evidence, (3) have realistic expectations regarding the impact of medical effectiveness reviews, and (4) understand the consequences of the reactive nature of mandated benefit reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: CHBRP has demonstrated that it is possible to produce useful reviews of the medical literature within the tight time constraints of the legislative process. The program's reports have provided state legislators with independent analyses that allow them to move beyond sifting through conflicting information from proponents and opponents to consider difficult policy choices and their implications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20021589      PMCID: PMC2888024          DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00582.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Milbank Q        ISSN: 0887-378X            Impact factor:   4.911


  18 in total

1.  Evidence-based coverage policy.

Authors:  A M Garber
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Efficiency, equity, and NICE clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Allan Wailoo; Jennifer Roberts; John Brazier; Chris McCabe
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-06

Review 3.  Evidence of evidence-based health policy: the politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions.

Authors:  Daniel M Fox
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Assessing the public health impact of state health benefit mandates.

Authors:  Sara B McMenamin; Helen A Halpin; Theodore G Ganiats
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Overview and commentary.

Authors:  Susan Philip
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Steven G Morgan; Meghan McMahon; Craig Mitton; Elizabeth Roughead; Ray Kirk; Panos Kanavos; Devidas Menon
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Research glut and information famine: making research evidence more useful for policymakers.

Authors:  David C Colby; Brian C Quinn; Claudia H Williams; Linda T Bilheimer; Sarah Goodell
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  I J Jacobs; S J Skates; N MacDonald; U Menon; A N Rosenthal; A P Davies; R Woolas; A R Jeyarajah; K Sibley; D G Lowe; D H Oram
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-04-10       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Evaluating medical effectiveness for the california health benefits review program.

Authors:  Harold S Luft; Karen M Rappaport; Edward H Yelin; Wade M Aubry
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  The California Cost and Coverage Model: analyses of the financial impacts of benefit mandates for the California legislature.

Authors:  Gerald F Kominski; Jay C Ripps; Miriam J Laugesen; Robert G Cosway; Nadereh Pourat
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.

Authors:  Susan R Forsyth; Donna H Odierna; David Krauth; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-18

Review 2.  Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Ellen Ashcraft; Deirdre A Quinn; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 7.960

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.