Incorporating quality of life data into managed care formulary decisions: a case study with salmeterol.
(9/500)
Pharmacy and Therapeutics committees of managed care organizations have traditionally developed formularies by limiting the numbers and kinds of pharmaceuticals they purchase, with the goal of cutting costs. These attempts to manage pharmaceutical costs do not take into account the interrelationship of the costs of various components of care; thus, drug costs may decrease, but expenditures for utilization of other resources may increase. Cost-minimization and basic cost-effectiveness studies, on which many prior- authorization and formulary programs are based, only evaluate only the cost of the drug and its effectiveness. However, with the heightened competition in the healthcare market, emphasis is increasingly being laid on patient satisfaction and outcomes. Cost-utility analysis is a potentially superior pharmacoeconomic tool because it evaluate the effect of drug therapy on quality of life; however, data from such analyses are seldom readily available to the committees that evaluate a drug's potential effects on the entire healthcare system. The purpose of this review is to stress the importance of approaching formulary management from a wider perspective and to emphasize that the results of cost-utility studies should be proactively evaluated and incorporated into decisions regarding formularies. This is especially important for symptom-intensive diseases, such as asthma, in which the quality of life can be notably impaired. Cost-utility analyses should be conducted for all newer therapies, such as salmeterol, which are highly effective and which have a positive impact on quality of life, to determine the overall effect on the managed care plan's budget. (+info)
A new method of developing expert consensus practice guidelines.
(10/500)
To improve the quality of medical care while reducing costs, it is necessary to standardize best practice habits at the most crucial clinical decision points. Because many pertinent questions encountered in everyday practice are not well answered by the available research, expert consensus is a valuable bridge between clinical research and clinical practice. Previous methods of developing expert consensus have been limited by their relative lack of quantification, specificity, representativeness, and implementation. This article describes a new method of developing, documenting, and disseminating expert consensus guidelines that meets these concerns. This method has already been applied to four disorders in psychiatry and could be equally useful for other medical conditions. Leading clinical researchers studying a given disorder complete a survey soliciting their opinions on its most important disease management questions that are not covered well by definitive research. The survey response rates among the experts for the four different psychiatric disorders have each exceeded 85%. The views of the clinical researchers are validated by surveying separately a large group of practicing clinicians to ensure that the guideline recommendations are widely generalizable. All of the suggestions made in the guideline are derived from, and referenced to, the experts' survey responses using criteria that were established a priori for defining first-, second-, and third-line choices. Analysis of survey results suggests that this method of quantifying expert responses achieves a high level of reliability and reproducibility. This survey method is probably the best available means for standardizing practice for decisions points not well covered by research. (+info)
Issues of medical necessity: a medical director's guide to good faith adjudication.
(11/500)
The term medical necessity is difficult to define, a problem for insurers who need to clearly describe what is and is not covered in their contracts with subscribers. An unclear, vague definition of medical necessity leaves insurers vulnerable to litigation by subscribers denied care deemed medically unnecessary. To avoid lawsuits, insurers must make every effort to educate their subscribers about their medical coverage, going beyond merely providing a lengthy subscriber handbook. In decisions on medical necessity, medical directors at insurance companies play a key role. They can bolster the insurer's position in denial-of-care cases in numerous ways, including keeping meticulous records, eliminating unreasonable financial incentives, maintaining a claims denial database, and consulting with other insurers to achieve a consensus on medical necessity. (+info)
The economic functions of carve outs in managed care.
(12/500)
This paper considers the economic functions of contracting separately for a portion of the insurance risk, offering both the payer's (i.e., employer's) and the health plan's perspective. Four major forms of carve outs are discussed: (1) payer specialty carve outs from all health plans; (2) payer specialty carve outs from only indemnity and preferred provider organization arrangements; (3) individual health plan carve outs to specialty vendors; and (4) group practice carve outs to specialty organizations. The paper examines whether carving out care fosters the payer's goal of delivering reasonable healthcare efficiently, how adverse selection affects the provision of healthcare, and the costs of providing this specialized care. (+info)
Carve outs: definition, experience, and choice among candidate conditions.
(13/500)
Despite increasing discussion of carve outs as a device for controlling costs and improving quality of care, little systematic information exists on the effects of carve outs on cost, quality, and access to healthcare services. In the absence of such information, a conceptual framework is useful for deciding which conditions and populations may benefit from carve-out strategies, and how such arrangements should be designed. After carefully defining carve outs, and distinguishing them from other similar arrangements, this paper identifies five characteristics of a healthcare condition that increase the likelihood that a carve out's benefits will outweigh its drawbacks. The paper also examines the advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches to structuring and administering carve-out arrangements, including how to pay for services, how to integrate them with mainstream care, provisions for consumer choice and provisions for carve-out accountability. The piece concludes that population carve outs, in which all the healthcare problems of a group of patients are managed by the carve-out organization, have inherent advantages, and identifies candidate conditions for population carve outs. (+info)
Technology assessment, coverage decisions, and conflict: the role of guidelines.
(14/500)
As pressure grows for health plans to be accountable for increasing quality of care within a cost-control environment, coverage of new technologies becomes a particularly challenging issue. For a number of reasons, health plans have adopted evidence-based methods for guiding technology decisions. The implementation of these methods has not been free of controversy, and conflicts have arisen between plans and proponents of technologies who often use the political and legal arena in an attempt to secure coverage. Unless these conflicts are resolved, the healthcare system may have difficulty meeting cost and quality objectives. Technology assessment and coverage process guidelines and flexible coverage approaches may be possible ways of resolving these conflicts. (+info)
Role of technology assessment in health benefits coverage for medical devices.
(15/500)
With the profusion of new medical technology, managed care organizations are faced with the challenge of determining which medical devices and services warrant health benefits coverage. To aid in this decision-making process, managed care companies turn to technology assessment, a process that differs from the Food and Drug Administration's review of medical devices. Health plans typically use a structured approach to implementing coverage requirements in employer group benefits contracts and use technology assessment to evaluate the scientific evidence of effectiveness to support coverage decisions. Also important is the societal context for decisions regarding coverage for new technologies and the options being considered by policy makers for accountability in technology assessment by private insurers and health plans. (+info)
Transmyocardial laser revascularization: a qualitative systematic review.
(16/500)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR) from an evidence-based perspective to help hospitals make resource management decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review of the clinical literature. METHODS: We searched the reference databases MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, SciSearch, and Current Contents to identify all articles related to TMLR published between January 1985 and March 1997. We collected, analyzed, and summarized clinical studies in evidence tables. RESULTS: The cumulative evidence available in the medical literature regarding the safety and effectiveness of TMLR encompasses approximately 2000 patients treated worldwide, primarily those with medically refractory angina. Preliminary data suggest that TMLR has an acceptable survival rate and effectively relieves angina in approximately 75% of patients. Data showing improved myocardial perfusion, cardiac function, or prognosis are inconclusive. The mechanism by which TMLR relieves angina is not yet known. CONCLUSIONS: Early evidence regarding TMLR suggests it will be useful for treating patients with end-stage coronary artery disease. Definitive recommendations await critical analysis of the results of ongoing randomized clinical trials, post-market surveillance studies, and third-party payer acceptance. (+info)