Literature DB >> 28212967

Decision Making on Medical Innovations in a Changing Health Care Environment: Insights from Accountable Care Organizations and Payers on Personalized Medicine and Other Technologies.

Julia R Trosman1, Christine B Weldon2, Michael P Douglas3, Patricia A Deverka4, John B Watkins5, Kathryn A Phillips6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New payment and care organization approaches, such as those of accountable care organizations (ACOs), are reshaping accountability and shifting risk, as well as decision making, from payers to providers, within the Triple Aim context of health reform. The Triple Aim calls for improving experience of care, improving health of populations, and reducing health care costs.
OBJECTIVES: To understand how the transition to the ACO model impacts decision making on adoption and use of innovative technologies in the era of accelerating scientific advancement of personalized medicine and other innovations.
METHODS: We interviewed representatives from 10 private payers and 6 provider institutions involved in implementing the ACO model (i.e., ACOs) to understand changes, challenges, and facilitators of decision making on medical innovations, including personalized medicine. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We found that representatives from the participating payer companies and ACOs perceive similar challenges to ACOs' decision making in terms of achieving a balance between the components of the Triple Aim-improving care experience, improving population health, and reducing costs. The challenges include the prevalence of cost over care quality considerations in ACOs' decisions and ACOs' insufficient analytical and technology assessment capacity to evaluate complex innovations such as personalized medicine. Decision-making facilitators included increased competition across ACOs and patients' interest in personalized medicine.
CONCLUSIONS: As new payment models evolve, payers, ACOs, and other stakeholders should address challenges and leverage opportunities to arm ACOs with robust, consistent, rigorous, and transparent approaches to decision making on medical innovations.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accountable care organizations; coverage policy; decision making; personalized medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28212967      PMCID: PMC5319741          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.2402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  71 in total

1.  Accountable care organizations: the case for flexible partnerships between health plans and providers.

Authors:  Jeff Goldsmith
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Creating accountable care organizations: the extended hospital medical staff.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; Douglas O Staiger; Julie P W Bynum; Daniel J Gottlieb
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.

Authors:  David J Nyweide; Woolton Lee; Timothy T Cuerdon; Hoangmai H Pham; Megan Cox; Rahul Rajkumar; Patrick H Conway
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The triple aim: care, health, and cost.

Authors:  Donald M Berwick; Thomas W Nolan; John Whittington
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  A cautious path forward on accountable care organizations.

Authors:  Barak D Richman; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  ACO or no: how to decide. Hospitals must weigh the benefits and the risks before choosing their paths.

Authors:  Howard Larkin
Journal:  Trustee       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

7.  Universal Genomic Testing Needed to Win the War Against Cancer: Genomics IS the Diagnosis.

Authors:  Vivek Subbiah; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Richard A Settersten; Eric T Juengst; Jennifer R Fishman
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Capacity building for assessing new technologies: approaches to examining personalized medicine in practice.

Authors:  Stephanie L Van Bebber; Julia R Trosman; Su-Ying Liang; Grace Wang; Deborah A Marshall; Sara Knight; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  Hospitals Participating In ACOs Tend To Be Large And Urban, Allowing Access To Capital And Data.

Authors:  Carrie H Colla; Valerie A Lewis; Emily Tierney; David B Muhlestein
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 6.301

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Bridging the Gaps in Personalized Medicine Value Assessment: A Review of the Need for Outcome Metrics across Stakeholders and Scientific Disciplines.

Authors:  William S Bush; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Mark F Beno; Dana C Crawford
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  US private payers' perspectives on insurance coverage for genome sequencing versus exome sequencing: A study by the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER).

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Bruce D Gelb; Bart S Ferket; Lucia A Hindorff; Anne M Slavotinek; Jonathan S Berg; Heidi V Russell; Beth Devine; Veronica Greve; Hadley Stevens Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Key Collaborative Factors When Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations Work With Primary Care Clinics to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Relationships, Data, and Quality Improvement Infrastructure.

Authors:  Melinda M Davis; Rose Gunn; Robyn Pham; Amy Wiser; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Stephanie B Wheeler; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 2.830

4.  Laboratory business models and practices: implications for availability and access to germline genetic testing.

Authors:  Maren T Scheuner; Michael P Douglas; Paloma Sales; Sara L Ackerman; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 8.822

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.