Literature DB >> 2117223

Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment.

C E Phelps1, S T Parente.   

Abstract

This study seeks to assist in setting priorities for assessing medical practices and technologies when assessment resources are scarce. It develops an objective index of expected gain from technology assessment, using modified DRG-level data on hospitalizations in NY State. The index uses standard economic concepts to combine measures of resource use, the coefficient of variation in use rates across regions, and the rate at which the incremental value of a medical intervention changes as its rate of use changes, providing a dollar-valued welfare loss from variations. For the entire US in 1987, the highest index occurred for coronary artery bypass graft ($0.95 billion per year), but most of the high-index interventions were nonsurgical, including hospitalizations for psychosis ($0.74 billion per year), cardiac catheterization ($0.62 billion per year), chronic obstructive lung disease ($0.55 billion per year), angina pectoris ($0.46 billion per year), adult gastroenteritis ($0.38 billion per year), adult pneumonia ($0.32 billion per year) and medical back problems ($0.28 billion per year). The top 25 interventions create an annual welfare loss of exceeding $7 billion. The present value of convincingly assessing the correct way to use these interventions sums many years of annual gains from eliminating these welfare losses. The gains from eliminating unexplained variation in medical practices appear greatly larger than costs of necessary studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2117223     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199008000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  9 in total

Review 1.  On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.

Authors:  Jonathan Lomas; Naomi Fulop; Diane Gagnon; Pauline Allen
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Setting priorities and selecting topics for clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  R N Battista; M J Hodge
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Variability in prescription drug utilization: issues for research.

Authors:  A H Anis; S G Carruthers; A O Carter; J Kierulf
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-03-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Patterns of use of the bone mineral density test in Ontario, 1992-1998.

Authors:  S B Jaglal; W J McIsaac; G Hawker; L Jaakkimainen; S M Cadarette; B T Chan
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Variations in surgical rates in Quebec: does access to teaching hospitals make a difference?

Authors:  R Blais
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  How are family physicians managing osteoporosis? Qualitative study of their experiences and educational needs.

Authors:  Susan B Jaglal; June Carroll; Gillian Hawker; Warren J McIsaac; Liisa Jaakkimainen; Suzanne M Cadarette; Cathy Cameron; Dave Davis
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 7.  Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience.

Authors:  Karl P Claxton; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD.

Authors:  Milo A Puhan; Tsung Yu; Cynthia M Boyd; Gerben Ter Riet
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Value of Information: A Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste.

Authors:  Cosetta Minelli; Gianluca Baio
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 11.069

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.