The review process used by U.S. health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 294-302

  Steiner, Claudia A ^a,c   Powe, Neil R ^a,b,d   Anderson, Gerard F ^a,b   Das, Abhik ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

^d DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence based medicine; insurance; managed care; medical decision making; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; UNITED STATES; ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; INSURANCE; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; INSURANCE, HEALTH; MANAGED CARE PROGRAMS; PHYSICIAN EXECUTIVES; QUESTIONNAIRES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029665408     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02598272     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Hall MA, Andersen GF. Health insurers' assessment of medical necessity. Univ PA Law Rev. 1992;140:1637-1712.
2. McGivney W. Technology assessment and coverage decision making. AAPPO J. 1994;4(5):11-7.
3. Buto K. Coverage Decisions Made by the Government. Report of the NHLBI Workshop on the Artificial Heart: Planning for Evolving Technologies. Access to Evolving Technologies: Economic Constraints. Bethesda, Md: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: 1993.
4. Hummel AM, Cova JL, Gleeson S. Payer's perspective. In: Grady ML, ed. Summary Report. New Medical Technology: Experimental or State-of-the Art. AHCPR publication no. 92-0057. Rorkville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: June 1992;93-106.
5. Gleeson S. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association initiatives in technology assessment. In: Gelijns AC, Dawkins HP, eds. Adopting New Medical Technology. Committee on Technological Innovation in Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Washington, UC: National Academy Press: 1994.
6. Peters WP, Rogers MC. Variation in approval by insurance companies of coverage for autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(7):473-7.
7. Bunker JP, Fowles J, Schaffarzick R. Evaluation of medical-technology strategies. Effects of coverage and reimbursement. N Engl J Med. 1982;306(10):620-4.
8. Kalb P. Controlling health care costs by controlling technology: a private contractual approach. The Yale Law Journal. 1990;99: 1109-26.
9. Finkelstein ST, Isaacson KA, Frishkopf JJ. The process of evaluating medical technologies for third-party coverage. J Health Care Technol. 1984;1(2):89-101.
10. Greenberg B, Derzon RA. Determining health insurance coverage of technology: problems and options. Med Care. 1981;19(10):967-78.
11. Towery OB, Perry S. The scientific basis for coverage decision by third party payers. JAMA. 1981;245(1):59-61.
12. Williams HM. Cancer therapy: reimbursement of new therapeutic technologies. Yale J Biology and Medicine. 1992;65:83-97.
13. Light DW. Life, death and the insurance companies (editorial). New Engl J Med. 1994;330(7):498-9.
14. Anders G. Researchers Call Insurers "Arbitrary" in Covering Bone-Marrow Transplants. The Wall Street Journal. 1994 Feb 17; Sect. B: 12.
15. McGivney W, Fersch C. Aetna technology assessment. Aetna TA. 1991;1(1):1-3.
16. Boren SD. Sounding board: I had a tough day today. Hillary, New Engl J Med. 1994;330(7):500-2.
17. Group Health Association of America, Inc. HMO Industry Profile, 1993 Edition. Washington, DC. 1993.
18. Health Insurance Association of America. Source Book of Health Insurance Data 1993. Washington, DC. 1993.
19. Gray J. They really should call it managed doctors. Medical Economics, 1991:64-81.
20. Sackett D, Haynes B, Tugwell P, eds. Clinical Epidemiology, A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston: Mass: Little, Brown and Company; seclion III, pp 245-351, 1985.
21. Mausner J, Kramer S. Epidemiology - An Introductory Text. Philadelphia, Pa: W.B. Sannders Company, 1985.
22. Issues in improving effectiveness research. In: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying Health Technologies That Work. Searching for Evidence, OTA-H-608. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: September 1994;77-105.
23. Powe NR, Turner JA, Maklan C, Ersek M. Alternative methods for formal literature review and meta-analysis in AHCPR patient outcomes research teams. Med Care. 1994;32(7 suppl):JS22-37.
24. Tools for effectiveness research. In: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Identifying Health Technologies That Work. Searching for Evidence, OTA-H-608. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: September 1994;39-76.
25. Field M, Lohr K, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Direction for a New Program. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 1990.
26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR Program Note. Clinical Practice Guideline Development. AHCPR publication no. 93-0023: August 1993.
27. Ermann D. Hospital utilization review: past experience, future directions. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988;13(4):683-704.
28. Gabel J, Fink S, Lippert C, Philhour J, Koller F, DiCarlo S. Trends in Managed Health Care. Research Bulletin. Health Insurance Association of America: 1989;1-29.
29. Ferguson JH, Dubinsky M, Kirsch PJ. Court-ordered reimbursement for unproven medical technology: circumventing technology assessment. JAMA. 1993;269(16):2116-21.
30. Anderson GF, Hall MA, Steinberg EP, Medical technology assessment and practice guidelines: their day in court. Am J Pub Health. 1993;83(11):1635-9.
31. Leaf A. Sounding hoard: cost effectiveness as a criterion for medicare coverage. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(13):898-900.
32. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Care Financing Administration. Medicare Program: Criteria and Procedures for Making Medical Services Coverage Decisions that Relate to Health Care Technology. Fed Reg. 1989;54(18):4302-17.
33. Hillman AL. Financial incentives for physicians in HMOs. Is there a conflict of interest? N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1743-8.
34. Iglehart J. Health policy report: The American health care system, managed care. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(10):742-7.
35. Eckholm E. While Congress remains silent, health care transforms itself. New York Times, 1994 Dec 18;Sect. A:1.