升级SACT数据集和EBMT注册,使英国肿瘤学基于结果的报销:差距分析和顶级成本估算。

Q2 Medicine
Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2019-06-27 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842
Jesper Jørgensen, Panos Kefalas
{"title":"升级SACT数据集和EBMT注册,使英国肿瘤学基于结果的报销:差距分析和顶级成本估算。","authors":"Jesper Jørgensen,&nbsp;Panos Kefalas","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Outcomes-based reimbursement (OBR) can reduce decision uncertainty and accelerate patient access to cell and gene therapies, however, OBR is rarely applied in practice in England. Oncology is the therapy area with the most cell and gene therapies in late-stage development, and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset and The European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) registry are two data collection infrastructures that could potentially act as conduits for implementing OBR in cancer in England. <b>Objective</b>: To perform a gap analysis to identify the key requirements for upgrading the SACT and EBMT databases for the purposes of enabling OBR, and a top-level estimation of how much this upgrade may cost, using either a manual (staff-heavy) workaround or part automation (technology-heavy) approach. <b>Methodology</b>: The analysis of current data capture and gaps is informed by secondary research, while the assumptions and data used to derive the top-level cost estimates were informed by consensus-based primary research with experts in healthcare information technology (IT) systems integration and platform development, as well as experts of SACT and EBMT. <b>Findings</b>: In its current form, the SACT dataset in isolation is largely unfit for enabling OBR in oncology, whether through clinical, economic or humanistic outcomes. The EBMT registry has a greater potential; however, this relates to key clinical outcomes only, not economic or humanistic outcomes. Part automation requires a higher upfront investment than the manual workaround (~£1.8 million vs. ~£400k); however, lower annual costs (~£200 vs. ~£260k-£850k) mean that part automation becomes a more cost-effective approach over time. <b>Conclusions</b>: An appropriately automated and scalable data collection infrastructure should be implemented, with the ability to integrate clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes with healthcare cost data and payment systems, to enable OBR not only in cancer but also in other therapy areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Upgrading the SACT dataset and EBMT registry to enable outcomes-based reimbursement in oncology in England: a gap analysis and top-level cost estimate.\",\"authors\":\"Jesper Jørgensen,&nbsp;Panos Kefalas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Outcomes-based reimbursement (OBR) can reduce decision uncertainty and accelerate patient access to cell and gene therapies, however, OBR is rarely applied in practice in England. Oncology is the therapy area with the most cell and gene therapies in late-stage development, and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset and The European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) registry are two data collection infrastructures that could potentially act as conduits for implementing OBR in cancer in England. <b>Objective</b>: To perform a gap analysis to identify the key requirements for upgrading the SACT and EBMT databases for the purposes of enabling OBR, and a top-level estimation of how much this upgrade may cost, using either a manual (staff-heavy) workaround or part automation (technology-heavy) approach. <b>Methodology</b>: The analysis of current data capture and gaps is informed by secondary research, while the assumptions and data used to derive the top-level cost estimates were informed by consensus-based primary research with experts in healthcare information technology (IT) systems integration and platform development, as well as experts of SACT and EBMT. <b>Findings</b>: In its current form, the SACT dataset in isolation is largely unfit for enabling OBR in oncology, whether through clinical, economic or humanistic outcomes. The EBMT registry has a greater potential; however, this relates to key clinical outcomes only, not economic or humanistic outcomes. Part automation requires a higher upfront investment than the manual workaround (~£1.8 million vs. ~£400k); however, lower annual costs (~£200 vs. ~£260k-£850k) mean that part automation becomes a more cost-effective approach over time. <b>Conclusions</b>: An appropriately automated and scalable data collection infrastructure should be implemented, with the ability to integrate clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes with healthcare cost data and payment systems, to enable OBR not only in cancer but also in other therapy areas.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2019.1635842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:基于结果的报销(OBR)可以减少决策的不确定性,加速患者获得细胞和基因治疗,然而,OBR在英国的实践中很少应用。肿瘤学是晚期细胞和基因疗法开发最多的治疗领域,系统性抗癌治疗(SACT)数据集和欧洲血液和骨髓移植协会(EBMT)注册表是两个数据收集基础设施,可能作为英国癌症实施OBR的管道。目的:执行差距分析,以确定为实现OBR而升级SACT和EBMT数据库的关键需求,并使用手动(人员繁重)的工作方法或部分自动化(技术繁重)的方法,对该升级可能花费的成本进行顶层估计。方法:对当前数据捕获和差距的分析是通过二次研究得出的,而用于得出顶层成本估算的假设和数据是通过医疗信息技术(IT)系统集成和平台开发专家以及SACT和EBMT专家基于共识的初步研究得出的。研究结果:在目前的形式下,SACT数据集在很大程度上不适合在肿瘤学中实现OBR,无论是通过临床、经济还是人文结果。EBMT注册具有更大的潜力;然而,这只涉及关键的临床结果,而不是经济或人文结果。与手工解决方案相比,零件自动化需要更高的前期投资(约180万英镑vs约40万英镑);然而,较低的年成本(约200英镑vs约26万英镑- 85万英镑)意味着随着时间的推移,零件自动化将成为一种更具成本效益的方法。结论:应该实施适当的自动化和可扩展的数据收集基础设施,能够将临床、经济和人文结果与医疗成本数据和支付系统相结合,使OBR不仅适用于癌症,也适用于其他治疗领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Upgrading the SACT dataset and EBMT registry to enable outcomes-based reimbursement in oncology in England: a gap analysis and top-level cost estimate.

Upgrading the SACT dataset and EBMT registry to enable outcomes-based reimbursement in oncology in England: a gap analysis and top-level cost estimate.

Upgrading the SACT dataset and EBMT registry to enable outcomes-based reimbursement in oncology in England: a gap analysis and top-level cost estimate.

Upgrading the SACT dataset and EBMT registry to enable outcomes-based reimbursement in oncology in England: a gap analysis and top-level cost estimate.

Background: Outcomes-based reimbursement (OBR) can reduce decision uncertainty and accelerate patient access to cell and gene therapies, however, OBR is rarely applied in practice in England. Oncology is the therapy area with the most cell and gene therapies in late-stage development, and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset and The European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) registry are two data collection infrastructures that could potentially act as conduits for implementing OBR in cancer in England. Objective: To perform a gap analysis to identify the key requirements for upgrading the SACT and EBMT databases for the purposes of enabling OBR, and a top-level estimation of how much this upgrade may cost, using either a manual (staff-heavy) workaround or part automation (technology-heavy) approach. Methodology: The analysis of current data capture and gaps is informed by secondary research, while the assumptions and data used to derive the top-level cost estimates were informed by consensus-based primary research with experts in healthcare information technology (IT) systems integration and platform development, as well as experts of SACT and EBMT. Findings: In its current form, the SACT dataset in isolation is largely unfit for enabling OBR in oncology, whether through clinical, economic or humanistic outcomes. The EBMT registry has a greater potential; however, this relates to key clinical outcomes only, not economic or humanistic outcomes. Part automation requires a higher upfront investment than the manual workaround (~£1.8 million vs. ~£400k); however, lower annual costs (~£200 vs. ~£260k-£850k) mean that part automation becomes a more cost-effective approach over time. Conclusions: An appropriately automated and scalable data collection infrastructure should be implemented, with the ability to integrate clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes with healthcare cost data and payment systems, to enable OBR not only in cancer but also in other therapy areas.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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