新技术的医疗保险支付。尽管目标相互冲突,这个过程能否得到改进?ECRI技术管理评估。

Journal of health care technology Pub Date : 1986-01-01
{"title":"新技术的医疗保险支付。尽管目标相互冲突,这个过程能否得到改进?ECRI技术管理评估。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decisions about Medicare payment for new technologies are made by a multiagency process that became even more complex with the advent of DRG-based payments for inpatient care. Numerous problems with this decision-making process are widely acknowledged to exist but difficult to solve because of inherent conflicting goals. This report proposes consideration of basic improvements to the process, including: increased support for clinical and cost studies, particularly from manufacturers of new technologies; approval of provisional payments to providers who agree to collect effectiveness and cost data; additional research into technology assessment methods; clarification of decision-making criteria; opening of the coverage-decision process to greater public scrutiny; according more weight to recommendations of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission; submission of additional data to the Food and Drug Administration; and increasing the flow of information among Medicare coverage-decision agencies and other third-party payers. Many of these modifications can be accomplished without congressional action, if the interested parties are willing to work together to improve the coverage-decision process.</p>","PeriodicalId":80026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care technology","volume":"3 1","pages":"13-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medicare payment for new technologies. Can the process be improved despite conflicting goals? An ECRI technology management assessment.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Decisions about Medicare payment for new technologies are made by a multiagency process that became even more complex with the advent of DRG-based payments for inpatient care. Numerous problems with this decision-making process are widely acknowledged to exist but difficult to solve because of inherent conflicting goals. This report proposes consideration of basic improvements to the process, including: increased support for clinical and cost studies, particularly from manufacturers of new technologies; approval of provisional payments to providers who agree to collect effectiveness and cost data; additional research into technology assessment methods; clarification of decision-making criteria; opening of the coverage-decision process to greater public scrutiny; according more weight to recommendations of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission; submission of additional data to the Food and Drug Administration; and increasing the flow of information among Medicare coverage-decision agencies and other third-party payers. Many of these modifications can be accomplished without congressional action, if the interested parties are willing to work together to improve the coverage-decision process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care technology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"13-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1986-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于新技术的医疗保险支付的决定是由一个多机构的过程做出的,随着基于drg的住院治疗支付的出现,这个过程变得更加复杂。人们普遍认为,这一决策过程存在许多问题,但由于内在的目标冲突而难以解决。本报告建议考虑对这一过程进行基本改进,包括:增加对临床和成本研究的支持,特别是来自新技术制造商的支持;批准向同意收集有效性和成本数据的供应商支付临时款项;进一步研究技术评估方法;澄清决策标准;将报道决策过程开放给更多的公众监督;更重视预期付款评估委员会的建议;向食品和药物管理局提交额外数据;增加医疗保险覆盖决策机构和其他第三方支付者之间的信息流动。如果有关各方愿意共同努力,改进保险范围的决定过程,许多这些修改都可以在没有国会行动的情况下完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medicare payment for new technologies. Can the process be improved despite conflicting goals? An ECRI technology management assessment.

Decisions about Medicare payment for new technologies are made by a multiagency process that became even more complex with the advent of DRG-based payments for inpatient care. Numerous problems with this decision-making process are widely acknowledged to exist but difficult to solve because of inherent conflicting goals. This report proposes consideration of basic improvements to the process, including: increased support for clinical and cost studies, particularly from manufacturers of new technologies; approval of provisional payments to providers who agree to collect effectiveness and cost data; additional research into technology assessment methods; clarification of decision-making criteria; opening of the coverage-decision process to greater public scrutiny; according more weight to recommendations of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission; submission of additional data to the Food and Drug Administration; and increasing the flow of information among Medicare coverage-decision agencies and other third-party payers. Many of these modifications can be accomplished without congressional action, if the interested parties are willing to work together to improve the coverage-decision process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信