Spine care: Evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology

American Journal of Medical Quality

Volumn 24, Issue SUPPL. 6, 2009, Pages

  Smith, Harvey E ^a   Rihn, Jeffrey A ^b   Brodke, Darrel S ^c   Guyer, Richard ^d   Coric, Dom ^e   Lonner, Baron ^f   Shelokov, Alexis P ^j   Currier, Bradford L ^g   Riley, Lee ^h   Phillips, Frank M ⁱ   Albert, Todd J ^b  

^a Methodist Center for Orthopaedic Surgery   (United States)

^b ROTHMAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^d TEXAS BACK INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e CAROLINA NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE ASSOCIATES   (United States)

^f Scoliosis Associates of New York   (United States)

^g MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^j NONE

more..

Author keywords

Health care; Outcomes; Spine surgery; Technology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MEDICARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAFETY; SPINE DISEASE; UNITED STATES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DEVICE APPROVAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SPINAL DISEASES; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 70449725120     PISSN: 10628606     EISSN: 1555824X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1062860609349312     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Congressional Budget Office. Technological change and the growth of healthcare spending. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8947/01-31-TechHealth.pdf. Published January 2008. Accessed August 10, 2009.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Device advice: device regulation and guidance. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3132.html. Accessed April 17, 2009.
3. US Government Accountability Office. FDA should take steps to ensure that high-risk device types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09190.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2009.
4. Mundy A. Political lobbying drove FDA process. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629954783946701.html. Published March 6, 2009. Accessed August 6, 2009.
5. Tumialan LM, Rodts GE Adverse swelling associated with use of rh-BMP-2 in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2007;7:509-510.
6. Perri B., Cooper M., Lauryssen C., Anand N. Adverse swelling associated with use of rh-BMP-2 in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A case study. Spine J. 2007;7: 235-239.
7. Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A., Claus EB Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA. 2009;302:58-66.
8. Stafford RS Regulating off-label drug use-rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1427-1429.
9. Mirza SK Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine. 2005;30:1561-1564.
10. Blumenthal S., McAfee PC, Guyer RD,et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1565-1575.
11. McAfee PC, Cunningham B., Holsapple G.,et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30: 1576-1583.
12. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S., Shucosky EM, Cunningham BW SB Charite disc replacement: Report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:424-433.
13. Burkus JK, Heim SE, Gornet MF, Zdeblick TA Is INFUSE bone graft superior to autograft bone? An integrated analysis of clinical trials using the LT-CAGE lumbar tapered fusion device. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:113-122.
14. Boden SD, Zdeblick TA, Sandhu HS, Heim SE The use of rhBMP-2 in interbody fusion cages. Definitive evidence of osteoinduction in humans: A preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:376-381.
15. Yaszemski MJ, Polly DW, Boden SD, Andersson GB Technology assessment: Approach and reimbursement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S39-S43.
16. Berven S., Smith A., Bozic K., Bradford DS Pay-for-performance: Considerations in application to the management of spinal disorders. Spine (Phial Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S33-S38.
17. Weinstein JN Threats to scientific advancement in clinical practice. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S58-S62.
18. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD,et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: Four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:2789-2800.
19. American Medical Association. The resource based relative value scale. The RVS Update Committee. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutionsmanaging-yo ur-practice/coding-billing-insurance/medicare/the-resource-based-relativ e-value-scale/the-rvs-update-committee.shtml. Accessed May 16, 2009.
20. Pearson SD, Knudsen AB, Scherer RW, Weissberg J., Gazelle GS Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1503-1514.
21. Pauly MV, Burns LR Price transparency for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1544-1553.
22. White AP, Vaccaro AR, Zdeblick T. Counterpoint: Physician-industry relationships can be ethically established, and conflicts of interest can be ethically managed. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S53-S57.
23. Thompson RC Jr, Bishop JR Controlling costs: Opportunities for physician-hospital collaborations and ventures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S27-S32.
24. Hahn RW, Klovers KB, Singer HJ The need for greater price transparency in the medical device industry: An economic analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27: 1554-1559.
25. Clyde AT, Bockstedt L., Farkas JA, Jackson C. Experience with Medicare's new technology add-on payment program. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1632-1641.
26. Braid MJ, Forbes KF, Moran DW Pharmaceutical "charge compression" under the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system. J Health Care Finance. 2004; 30:21-33.
27. Firth BG, Cooper LM, Fearn S. The appropriate role of cost-effectiveness in determining device coverage: A case study of drug-eluting stents. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1577-1586.
28. Carey TS, Mielenz TJ Measuring outcomes in back care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(11 suppl):S9-S14.
29. Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21:402-408.
30. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2940-2952.
31. Fairbank JC, Couper J., Davies JB, O'Brien JP The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271-273.
32. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
33. Malchau H. Introducing new technology: A stepwise algorithm. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:285.
34. Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN, Tosteson AN,et al. Design of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:1361-1372.