Julia R Trosman1, Stephanie L Van Bebber, Kathryn A Phillips. 1. Center for Translational and Policy Research in Personalized Medicine and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an increasing role in translating emerging technologies into clinical practice and policy. Private payers are important users of HTA whose decisions impact adoption and use of new technologies. We examine the current use of HTA by private payers in coverage decisions for personalized medicine, a field that is increasingly impacting oncology practice. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and semistructured interviews. METHODS: We reviewed seven HTA organizations used by private payers in decision making and explored how HTA is used by major US private payers (n = 11) for coverage of personalized medicine. RESULTS: All payers used HTA in coverage decisions, but the number of HTA organizations used by an individual payer ranged from one (n = 1) to all seven (n = 1), with the majority of payers (n = 8) using three or more. Payers relied more extensively on HTAs for reviews of personalized medicine (64%) than for other technologies. Most payers (82%) equally valued expertise of reviewers and rigor of evaluation as HTA strengths, whereas genomic-specific methodology was less important. Key reported shortcomings were limited availability of reviews (73%) and limited inclusion of nonclinical factors (91%), such as cost-effectiveness or adoption of technology in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Payers use a range of HTAs in their coverage decisions related to personalized medicine, but the current state of HTA to comprehensively guide those decisions is limited. HTA organizations should address current gaps to improve their relevance to payers and clinicians. Current HTA shortcomings may also inform the national HTA agenda.
PURPOSE: Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an increasing role in translating emerging technologies into clinical practice and policy. Private payers are important users of HTA whose decisions impact adoption and use of new technologies. We examine the current use of HTA by private payers in coverage decisions for personalized medicine, a field that is increasingly impacting oncology practice. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and semistructured interviews. METHODS: We reviewed seven HTA organizations used by private payers in decision making and explored how HTA is used by major US private payers (n = 11) for coverage of personalized medicine. RESULTS: All payers used HTA in coverage decisions, but the number of HTA organizations used by an individual payer ranged from one (n = 1) to all seven (n = 1), with the majority of payers (n = 8) using three or more. Payers relied more extensively on HTAs for reviews of personalized medicine (64%) than for other technologies. Most payers (82%) equally valued expertise of reviewers and rigor of evaluation as HTA strengths, whereas genomic-specific methodology was less important. Key reported shortcomings were limited availability of reviews (73%) and limited inclusion of nonclinical factors (91%), such as cost-effectiveness or adoption of technology in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Payers use a range of HTAs in their coverage decisions related to personalized medicine, but the current state of HTA to comprehensively guide those decisions is limited. HTA organizations should address current gaps to improve their relevance to payers and clinicians. Current HTA shortcomings may also inform the national HTA agenda.
Authors: Peter J Neumann; Jennifer A Palmer; Norman Daniels; Karen Quigley; Marthe R Gold; Schumarry Chao Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; James D Chambers; Christine B Weldon; Andrew P Dervan Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Su-Ying Liang; Christine B Weldon; Allison W Kurian; Robin K Kelley; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Laura M Amendola; M Ragan Hart; Robin L Bennett; Martha Horike-Pyne; Michael Dorschner; Brian Shirts; Gail P Jarvik Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Elizabeth Clain; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Christine B Weldon; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Julie Ann Sakowski; Julia Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Su-Ying Liang; Peter Neumann Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Brian Godman; Alexander E Finlayson; Parneet K Cheema; Eva Zebedin-Brandl; Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Jan Jones; Rickard E Malmström; Elina Asola; Christoph Baumgärtel; Marion Bennie; Iain Bishop; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Eduardo Diogene; Alessandra Ferrario; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Miguel Gomes; Katharine Harris; Alan Haycox; Harald Herholz; Krystyna Hviding; Saira Jan; Marija Kalaba; Christina Kvalheim; Ott Laius; Sven-Ake Lööv; Kamila Malinowska; Andrew Martin; Laura McCullagh; Fredrik Nilsson; Ken Paterson; Ulrich Schwabe; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Dominik Tomek; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Luka Voncina; Magdalena Wladysiuk; Menno van Woerkom; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Corrine Zara; Raghib Ali; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 8.775