The review process used by U.S. health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage
- 89 Downloads
OBJECTIVE: To examine the process and information used by medical directors (MDs) of private health plans to make medical coverage determinations for new medical technologies, and to assess the influence of plan characteristics on the process.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred thirty-one MDs at private health plans representing 66% and 72% of the U.S. population covered by HMOs and indemnity plans, respectively.
MEASUREMENTS: Actual and optimal review process, final decision authority, sources, and evidence used for technology coverage decisions.
RESULTS: In 96% of plans, MDs take part in the medical policy review process for new technology. However, MDs have final authority over coverage decisions in only 27% of plans. Indemnity plans are more likely to assert that MDs should be responsible for final decisions, odds ratio (OR)=3.3 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.4, 10). Optimal sources of information on new technology were journals, medical society statements or practice guidelines, and opinions of national experts. Actual sources of information used differed from optimal ones; local experts were used more often than is considered optimal (p<.001). For-profit plans were more likely than nonprofit plans to use national experts, OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3, 5.0), and practice guidelines, OR 5.0 (95% CI 2.5, 10). Randomized trials (94% of MDs) meta-analyses (61%), and reviews (42%) were considered the best evidence for making coverage decisions. Barriers to making optimal decisions were lack of timely evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, not legal or regulatory issues; HMO, small, and nonprofit plans were two to three times more likely to list lack of cost-effectiveness data than their counterparts (p<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although MDs are nearly always involved in the technology evaluation process, a minority of MDs retain final authority over coverage decisions. Evidence from strong scientific research designs is the most frequently cited basis for decisions, but there is need for more timely, rigorous scientific evidence on medical interventions. How a health plan evaluates a new medical technology for coverage varies with identifiable plan characteristics.
Key wordstechnology assessment insurance managed care evidence-based medicine medical decision making
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hall MA, Anderson GF. Health insurers’ assessment of medical necessity. Univ PA Law Rev. 1992;140:1637–1712.Google Scholar
- 2.McGivney W. Technology assessment and coverage decision making. AAPPOJ. 1994;4(5):11–7.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; June 1992;93–106.Google Scholar
- 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, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- 12.Williams HM. Cancer therapy: reimbursement of new therapeutic technologies. Yale J Biology and Medicine. 1992;65:83–97.Google Scholar
- 14.Anders G. Researchers Call Insurers “Arbitrary” in Covering Bone-Marrow Transplants. The Wall Street Journal. 1994 Feb 17; Sect. B:12.Google Scholar
- 15.McGivney W, Fersch C. Aetna technology assessment. Aetna TA. 1991;1(1):1–3.Google Scholar
- 17.Group Health Association of America, Inc. HMO Industry Profile, 1993 Edition. Washington, DC. 1993.Google Scholar
- 18.Health Insurance Association of America. Source Book of Health Insurance Data 1993. Washington, DC. 1993.Google Scholar
- 19.Gray J. They really should call it managed doctors. Medical Economics. 1991;64–81.Google Scholar
- 20.Sackett D, Haynes B, Tugwell P, eds. Clinical Epidemiology, A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Company; section III. pp 245–351. 1985.Google Scholar
- 21.Mausner J, Kramer S. Epidemiology — An Introductory Text. Philadelphia, Pa: W.B. Saunders Company, 1985.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 25.Field M, Lohr K, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines, Direction for a New Program. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 28.Gabel J, Fink S, Lippert C, Philhour J, Kotler F, DiCarlo S. Trends in Managed Health Care. Research Bulletin, Health Insurance Association of America; 1989;1–29.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 35.Eckholm E. While Congress remains silent, health care transforms itself. New York Times. 1994 Dec 18;Sect. A:1.Google Scholar