Factors influencing health insurers' decisions to cover new genetic technologies

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 178-189

  Schoonmaker, Michele M ^a   Bernhardt, Barbara A ^b   Holtzman, Neil A ^b  

^a ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic services; Genetic testing; Health insurance; Reimbursement

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FAMILY HISTORY; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; REIMBURSEMENT;

EID: 0034019350     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230016115X     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Anderson, G. F., Hall, M. A., & Steinberg, E. P. Medical technology assessment and practice guidelines: their day in court. American Journal of Public Health, 1993, 83, 1635-39.
2. Bernhardt, B. A. A survey of reimbursement for cystic fibrosis carrier testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 1993, 2, 69-76.
3. Bernhardt, B. A., Peshkin, P. N., & Kernel, Y. Billing and record-keeping for familial cancer risk counseling: a national survey. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 1998, 7, 317-30.
4. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. TEC assessment on genetic testing for inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Washington DC: Blue Cross Blue Shield, 1997.
5. Blumenthal, D., & Zeckhauser, R. Genetic diagnosis: Implications for medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 579-800.
6. Bunker, J. P., Fowles, J., & Schaffarzick, R. Evaluation of medical technology strategies: effects of coverage and reimbursement. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 620-24.
7. Cova, J. L. Payers perspective, II. In M. L. Grady (ed.), New medical technology: Experimental or state-of-the-art. AHCPR summary report PB92-182351, 1992.
8. Ferguson, J. H. Perspective from the National Institutes of Health. In M. L. Grady (ed.), New medical technology: Experimental or state-of-the-art. AHCPR summary report PB92-182351, 1992.
9. Finkelstein, S. N., Isaacson, K. A., & Frishkopf, J. J. The process of evaluating medical technologies for third party coverage. Journal of Health Care Technology, 1984, 1, 89-102.
10. Fuchs, V. R., & Garber, A. M. The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673-77.
11. Gleeson, S. Payer's perspective, III. In M. L. Grady (ed.), New medical technology: Experimental or state-of-the-art. AHCPR summary report PB92-182351, 1992.
12. Government Accounting Office. Coverage of autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Washington, DC: GAO. 1996. GAO/HEHS-96-83:1.
13. Greenberg, B., & Derzon, R. A. Determining health insurance coverage of technology: Problems and options. Medical Care, 1981, 19, 967-78.
14. Holtzman, N. A. Testing for genetic susceptibility: What you see is not what you get. Accountability in Research, 1997, 5, 95-101.
15. Holtzman, N. A, & Watson, M. S. (eds.). Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
16. Institute of Medicine. Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care, vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
17. Kaplan, G. N. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association's genetic services benefit study. Birth Defects, 1984, 20, 53-57.
18. Knowles, M. R., Hohneker, R. N., Zhou, A., et al. A controlled study of adenoviral-vector-mediated gene transfer in the nasal epithelium of patients with cystic fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1995, 333, 823-31.
19. Luce, B. R., & Brown, R. E. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third party payers in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 79-92.
20. Molino, P. J. Reimbursement disputes involving experimental medical treatment. Journal of Health and Hospital Law, 1991, 24, 329-59.
21. Myers, M. F., Doksum T., & Holtzman, N. A. Genetic services for common complex disorders: Surveys of health maintenance organizations and academic genetic centers. Genetics in Medicine, 1999, 1, 272-85.
22. National Institutes of Health. Genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. NIH Consensus Statement. 1997, 15, 1-37.
23. Powe, N. R., Steiner, C. A., & Anderson, G. F. Awareness of providers' use of new medical technology among private health care plans in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 367-76.
24. Reiser, S. J. Criteria for standard versus experimental therapy. Health Affairs, 1994, Summer, 127-36.
25. Saver, R. S. Reimbursing new technologies: Why are the courts judging experimental medicine? Stanford Law Revision, 1992, 44, 1095-131.
26. Steinberg, E. P., Tunis, S., & Shapiro, D. Insurance coverage for experimental technologies. Health Affairs, 1995, 14, 143-58.
27. Steiner, C. A., Powe, N. R, Anderson, G. F., et al. The review process used by U.S. health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1996, 11, 294-302.
28. Wilfond, B. S., Rothenberg, K. H., & Thomson, E. J. Cancer genetic susceptibility testing: Ethical and policy implications for future research and clinical practice. Journal of Law in Medical Ethics, 1997, 25, 243-51.