Confronting the "gray zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 301-316

  Giacomini, Mita ^a   Miller, Fiona ^a   Browman, George ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomedical *organization administration; Decision making; Genetics legislation jurisprudence; Health care rationing; Health priorities *organization administration; Organizational; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH INSURANCE;

PREDICTIVE GENETIC TESTING;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; SOCIAL ASPECT;

EID: 0038692884     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462303000278     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. First Annual Report (July 1996-December 1997). U.K.: Health Departments of the United Kingdom; 1998.
2. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Report on Genetic Testing for Late Onset Disorders. U.K.: Health Departments of the United Kingdom; 1998.
3. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Third Annual Report (January 1999 - December 1999, and Compendium of Guidance. U.K.: Health Departments of the United Kingdom; 2000.
4. Anonymous. Code of ethical principles for genetic professionals. Am J Med Genet. 1996;65:177-178.
5. Baird PA. Genetic technologies and achieving health for populations. Int J Health Serv. 2000;30:407-424.
6. Baird PA. The Human Genome Project, genetics and health. Community Genet. 2001;4:77-88.
7. Baird PA. Will genetics be used wisely? Isuma. 2001;2:94-101.
8. Basky G. Canada's first private genetic testing clinic 'highly problematic': Geneticist. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165:1524.
9. Battista RN, Hodge MJ, Vineis P. Medicine, practice and guidelines: The uneasy juncture of science and art. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:875-880.
10. Bell J. The new genetics: The new genetics in clinical practice. Br Med J. 1998;316:618-620.
11. Berger JT, Rosner F. The ethics of practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2051-2056.
12. Bergthold LA. Medical necessity: Do we need it? Health Affairs. 1995;14:180-190.
13. Biesecker BB. Future directions in genetic counseling: Practical and ethical considerations. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998;8:145-160.
14. Biesecker BB. The future of genetic counseling: An international perspective. Nat Genet. 1999;22:133-137.
15. Blustein J, Marmor T. Cutting waste by making rules: Promises, pitfalls, and realistic prospects. University Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1992;140:1543-1572.
16. Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics. American Society of Human Genetics report: Statement on informed consent for genetic research. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;59:471-474.
17. Burgess M, Laberge C, Knoppers B. Bioethics for clinicians: Ethics and genetics in medicine. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;158:1309-133.
18. Campbell A. Defining core health services: The New Zealand experience. Bioethics. 1995;9:252-258.
19. Canadian Medical Association. Core and comprehensive health care services: A framework for decision making. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 1994.
20. Canadian Medical Association. Guidelines for Canadian clinical practice guidelines. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 1994.
21. Caulfield T. Gene testing in the biotech century: Are physicians ready? Can Med Assoc J. 1999;161.
22. Caulfield T, Burgess MM, Williams-Jones B, et al. Providing genetic testing through the private sector: A view from Canada. Isuma. 2001;2:72-81.
23. Chalmers TC. Randomize the first patient. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:107-.
24. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Affairs. 1997;4:303-350.
25. Danish Council of Ethics. Priority Setting in the Health Service. 1997. Danish Parliament: Denmark. Available at: http://www.etiskraad.dk/publikationer/eng002.htm.
26. Deber R, Ross E, Catz M. Comprehensiveness in health care: Report to the Heal Action Lobby. Toronto: Department of Health Administration, University of Toronto; 1994.
27. Drucker P. [oft-cited quote appearing in a number of published sources and oral presentations] 2001.
28. Editor. Genetic testing for late onset disorders. Excerpts from an interview with Justice Jean-Louis Baudoin, Chair of the Expert Working Group on Genetic Testing for Late Onset Diseases. Health Policy Res Bull. 2001;1:14.
29. Elliott VS. Genetic tests need to prove their value. American Medical News, 2000. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_00/hlsa1225.htm.
30. Emery J, Hayflick S. The challenge of integrating genetic medicine into primary care. Br Med J. 2001;322:1027-1030.
31. Epp C. Experts debate new genetic screening company. Available at: http://sask.cbc.ca/editorServlets/View?filename=genetic01106. accessed November 21, 2001.
32. Evans JP, Skrzynia C, Burke W. The complexities of predictive genetic testing. Br Med J. 2001;322:1052-1056.
33. Evans RG, Barer ML, Stoddart GL, et al. It's not the money, it's the principle: Why user charges for some services and not others? Toronto: The Premier's Council on Health, Well-being, and Social Justice; 1994.
34. Giacomini M. The 'which' hunt: Assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Politics Policy Law, 1999;24:715-758.
35. Giacomini M, Cook D, Streiner D, et al. Using practice guidelines to select candidates for medical technologies: An ethics framework for clinicians and policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:984-999.
36. Giacomini M, Hurley J, Stoddart G. The many meanings of deinsuring a health service: The case of IVF in Ontario. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:1485-1500.
37. Giacomini M, Miller F, O'Brien B. Economic considerations for the public funding of emerging genetic tests (background paper). Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Advisory Committee on New Predictive Genetic Technologies; 2001.
38. Goel V, Group FC. Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. Br Med J. 2001;322:1174-1178.
39. Goldberg S. ACOG & cystic fibrosis. Available at: http://wwwama-assnorg/ama/pub/category/6299html. Accessed November 19, 2001.
40. Government Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in health care. Zoetermeer, the Netherlands: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Social Affairs; 1992.
41. Government of Ontario. Ontario report to premiers: Genetics and gene patenting: Charting new territory in health care. Toronto: Government of Ontario; 2002.
42. Grimshaw JM, Hutchison A. Clinical practice guidelines: Do they enhance value for money in health care? Br Med Bull. 1995;51:927-940.
43. Hall J. Incremental change in the Australian health care system. Health Affairs. 1999;18:95-110.
44. Hansson L, Norheim O, Ruyter K. Equality, explicitness, severity, and rigidity: The Oregon plan evaluated from a Scandanavian perspective. J Med Philos. 1994;19.
45. Heffner JE. Does evidence-based medicine help the development of clinical practice guidelines? Chest. 1998;113:172S-178S.
46. Heimdal K, Maehle L, Moller P. Costs and benefits of diagnosing familial breast cancer. Dis Markers. 1999;15:167-173.
47. Hoedemaekers R. Commercial predictive testing: The desirability of one overseeing body. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:282-286.
48. Holtzman NA, Marteau TM. Will genetics revolutionize medicine? N Engl J Med. 2000;343:141-144.
49. Hughes D, Griffiths L. 'Ruling in' and 'ruling out': Two approaches to the micro-rationing of health care. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:589-599.
50. Human Genetics Commission. HGC business work plan 2000/2001. Available at: http://wwwhgcgovuk/business_workhtm. Accessed October 12, 2001
51. Human Genetics Commission. Debating the ethical future of human genetics. U.K.: First Annual Report of the Human Genetics Commission; 2001.
52. Hurley J, Cosby JL, Giacomini M, et al. Making resource allocation decisions in the health care sector: A review of some recent proposals. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: HEALNet Regionalization Research Centre; 2000.
53. Joint Committee on Medical Genetics. National Genetics Commissioning Advisory Group (GenCAG). Available at: http://wwwbshgorguk/Official%20Docs/GenCAGhtm. Accessed July 11, 2001.
54. Kaufert P. Health policy and the new genetics. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:821-829.
55. Kinmonth AL, Reinhard J, Bobrow M, et al. The new genetics: Implications for clinical services in Britain and the United States. Br Med J. 1998;316:767-770.
56. Knoppers BM, Strom C, Clayton EW, et al. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:474-483.
57. Kuerer H, Hwang E, Anthony J, et al. Current national health insurance coverage policies for breast and ovarian cancer prophylactic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:325-332.
58. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;146:473-481.
59. Lemmens T. Private parties, public duties? The shifting role of insurance in the genetics era. In: Thompson A, ed. Genetic information: Acquisition, access, and control. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press; 1999:31-39.
60. Lemmens T, Austin L. The challenges of regulating the use of genetic information. Isuma. 2001;2:26-37.
61. Lemmens T, Bahamin P. Genetics in life, disability and additional health insurance in Canada: A comparative legal and ethical analysis. In: Socio-Ethical Issues in Human Genetics. Cowansville: Yvon Blais; 1998.
62. Lewontin RC. Biology as ideology. New York: Harper Perennial; 1992.
63. Mayor S. UK insurers agree five year ban on using genetic tests. Br Med J. 2001;323:1021.
64. McCabe E. An overview of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Presentation to the Ontario Advisory Committee on new predictive genetic technology horizon scanning session. Toronto: Ontario Advisory Committee; 2001.
65. Miller F, Hurley J, Morgan S, et al. Predictive genetic tests and health care costs. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care: 2002.
66. Munro M. Private lab offers screening for breast, ovarian cancer $3,850 test alarms MDs. Available at: http://wwwnationalpostcom/content/features/genome/0313005html. Accessed September 10, 2001.
67. National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Core Services for 1993-94. First Report of the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Wellington, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services; 1993.
68. National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Core Services for 1995-96. Third Report of the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Wellington, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services; 1995.
69. Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: Some limits to evidence-based medicine Lancet. 1995;345:840-842.
70. Nelkin D, Lindee M. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman; 1995.
71. Norheim OF. Healthcare rationing: Are additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines? Br Med J. 1999;319:1426-1429.
72. OECD. Genetic testing regulations in Canada. Available at: http:/wwwloecdorg/dsti/sti/s_t/biotech/prod/gt_canadaht. Accessed October 12, 2001
73. Ontario Provincial Advisory Committee on New Predictive Genetic Technologies. Genetic Services in Ontario: Mapping the Future. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2001.
74. Oregon Health Services Commission. Prioritization of health services: A report to the governor and legislature. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Health Services Commission; 1991.
75. Pater JL, Browman G, Brouwers M, et al. Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: Closing the loop in the practice guideline development cycle. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3392-3396.
76. Peterson RS. The role of values in predicting fairness judgments and support of affirmative action. J Soc Issues. 1994;50:95-115.
77. Robertson A. Biotechnology, political rationality and discourses on health risk. Health. 2001;5:293-309.
78. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with care. Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services Canada; 1993.
79. Sachs L. Knowledge of no return: Getting and giving information about genetic risk. Acta Oncol. 1999;38:735-740.
80. Sassi F, Archard L, Le Grand J. Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:i-138.
81. Schoonmaker MM, Bernhardt BA, Holtzman NA. Factors influencing health insurers' decisions to cover new genetic technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:178-189.
82. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Enhancing the oversight of genetic tests: Recommendations of the SACGT. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2000.
83. Singer P, Martin D, Giacomini M, et al. Priority setting for funding new technologies in medicine: A model for legitimate decision making. Br Med J. 2000;321:1316-1318.
84. Spodick CH. Randomize the first patient: Scientific, ethical, and behavioral bases. Am J Cardiol. 1983;51:916-917.
85. Steel M, Smyth E, Vasen H, et al. Ethical, social, and economic issues in familial breast cancer: A compilation of views from the EC Biomed II demonstration project. Dis Markers. 1999;15:125-131.
86. Swedish Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission. No easy choices: The difficult priorities of health care. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; 1995.
87. Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Priorities in health care: Ethics, economy, implementation. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; 1995.
88. ten Have HAMJ. Medical technology assessment and ethics: Ambivalent relations. Hastings Center Report. 1995;Sep-Oct:13-19.
89. US Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing (SAGCT). Request for public comment on a proposed template of genetic test information for use by health professionals. Federal Register. 2000;65:77631-77633.
90. Wilfond BS. American Society of Human Genetics/American College of Medical Genetics. Report. Points to consider: Ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57:1233-1241.
91. Wilfond BS, Rothenberg KH, Thomson EJ, et al. Cancer genetic susceptibility testing: Ethical and policy implications for future research and clinical practice. J Law Med Ethics. 1997;25:243-251.
92. Wilson R, Rowan MS, Henderson J. Core and comprehensive health care services: I Introduction to the Canadian Medical Association's decision-making framework. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152:1063-1066.
93. Woolf SH. Do clinical practice guidelines define good medical care? The need for good science and the disclosure of uncertainty when defining 'best practices.' Chest. 1998;113:166S-171S.