Cost, Coverage, and Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Critical Issues for Oncology

被引:17
作者
Pearson, Steven D. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Inst Clin & Econ Review, Inst Technol Assessment, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION; REIMBURSEMENT SCHEMES; CANCER DRUGS; CARE; COUNTRIES; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6601
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
A new national initiative in comparative effectiveness research (CER) is part of a broad and long-term evolution toward greater reliance on scientific evidence in clinical practice and medical policy. But CER has been controversial because of its high profile in the health care reform effort, its instantiation in a prominent new national research institute, and lingering concerns that the ultimate goal of CER is to empower the government and private insurers to reduce health care costs by restricting access to expensive new medical tests and treatments. This article presents an analysis of the policy development behind CER and focuses on its potential impact on insurance coverage and payment for oncology services. By itself, CER will not solve the tension that exists between the goal of innovative, personalized care and the eroding affordability of cancer treatment in the United States. But CER does offer an important opportunity for progress. Oncologists have taken important first steps in acknowledging their responsibility for addressing cost issues; as a professional society, they should now move forward to assume leadership in the effort to integrate clinical evidence with considerations of cost effectiveness to guide clinical practice and insurer policies. J Clin Oncol 30:4275-4281. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
引用
收藏
页码:4275 / 4281
页数:7
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Abernethy AP, 2009, ANN INTERN MED, V150, P336, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-150-5-200903030-00107
[2]  
[Anonymous], NEWS ART PCOR DEF FE
[3]   Limits on Medicare's Ability to Control Rising Spending on Cancer Drugs [J].
Bach, Peter B. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (06) :626-633
[4]   Commentary: Should Cost and Comparative Value of Treatments Be Considered in Clinical Practice Guidelines? [J].
Basch, Ethan ;
Somerfield, Mark R. ;
Partridge, Ann ;
Schnipper, Lowell ;
Lyman, Gary H. .
JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2011, 7 (06) :398-398
[5]   Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers [J].
Carlson, Josh J. ;
Sullivan, Sean D. ;
Garrison, Louis P. ;
Neumann, Peter J. ;
Veenstra, David L. .
HEALTH POLICY, 2010, 96 (03) :179-190
[6]   Paying for Outcomes: Innovative Coverage and Reimbursement Schemes for Pharmaceuticals [J].
Carlson, Josh J. ;
Garrison, Louis P., Jr. ;
Sullivan, Sean D. .
JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE PHARMACY, 2009, 15 (08) :683-687
[7]   Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence-Based Health Policy: Experience from Four Countries [J].
Chalkidou, Kalipso ;
Tunis, Sean ;
Lopert, Ruth ;
Rochaix, Lise ;
Sawicki, Peter T. ;
Nasser, Mona ;
Xerri, Bertrand .
MILBANK QUARTERLY, 2009, 87 (02) :339-367
[8]   Comparative-Effectiveness Research - Implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's Report [J].
Conway, Patrick H. ;
Clancy, Carolyn .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 361 (04) :328-330
[9]   Why Observational Studies Should Be Among The Tools Used In Comparative Effectiveness Research [J].
Dreyer, Nancy A. ;
Tunis, Sean R. ;
Berger, Marc ;
Ollendorf, Dan ;
Mattox, Pattra ;
Gliklich, Richard .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2010, 29 (10) :1818-1825
[10]   How Much Is Life Worth: Cetuximab, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, and the $440 Billion Question [J].
Fojo, Tito ;
Grady, Christine .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2009, 101 (15) :1044-1048