Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment - PubMed (original) (raw)
Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment
C E Phelps et al. Med Care. 1990 Aug.
Erratum in
- Correction and update on 'priority setting in medical technology assessment'.
Phelps CE, Mooney C. Phelps CE, et al. Med Care. 1992 Aug;30(8):744-51. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199208000-00006. Med Care. 1992. PMID: 1640769 No abstract available.
Abstract
This study seeks to assist in setting priorities for assessing medical practices and technologies when assessment resources are scarce. It develops an objective index of expected gain from technology assessment, using modified DRG-level data on hospitalizations in NY State. The index uses standard economic concepts to combine measures of resource use, the coefficient of variation in use rates across regions, and the rate at which the incremental value of a medical intervention changes as its rate of use changes, providing a dollar-valued welfare loss from variations. For the entire US in 1987, the highest index occurred for coronary artery bypass graft ($0.95 billion per year), but most of the high-index interventions were nonsurgical, including hospitalizations for psychosis ($0.74 billion per year), cardiac catheterization ($0.62 billion per year), chronic obstructive lung disease ($0.55 billion per year), angina pectoris ($0.46 billion per year), adult gastroenteritis ($0.38 billion per year), adult pneumonia ($0.32 billion per year) and medical back problems ($0.28 billion per year). The top 25 interventions create an annual welfare loss of exceeding $7 billion. The present value of convincingly assessing the correct way to use these interventions sums many years of annual gains from eliminating these welfare losses. The gains from eliminating unexplained variation in medical practices appear greatly larger than costs of necessary studies.
Similar articles
- Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study.
Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, Manning W, Rogers W, Kravitz RL, Keller A, Tarlov AR, Ware JE Jr. Greenfield S, et al. JAMA. 1992 Mar 25;267(12):1624-30. JAMA. 1992. PMID: 1542172 - Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Hologic 3D Mammography Selenia Dimensions System for Use in Breast Cancer Screening: A Single Technology Assessment [Internet].
Movik E, Dalsbø TK, Fagelund BC, Friberg EG, Håheim LL, Skår Å. Movik E, et al. Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2017 Sep 4. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2017-08. Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2017 Sep 4. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2017-08. PMID: 29553669 Free Books & Documents. Review. - Comparison of the appropriateness of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery between Canada and New York State.
McGlynn EA, Naylor CD, Anderson GM, Leape LL, Park RE, Hilborne LH, Bernstein SJ, Goldman BS, Armstrong PW, Keesey JW, et al. McGlynn EA, et al. JAMA. 1994 Sep 28;272(12):934-40. JAMA. 1994. PMID: 8084060 - Use of standardized patients to assess between-physician variations in resource utilization.
McLeod PJ, Tamblyn RM, Gayton D, Grad R, Snell L, Berkson L, Abrahamowicz M. McLeod PJ, et al. JAMA. 1997 Oct 8;278(14):1164-8. JAMA. 1997. PMID: 9326476 - Interventional pain management at crossroads: the perfect storm brewing for a new decade of challenges.
Manchikanti L, Singh V, Boswell MV. Manchikanti L, et al. Pain Physician. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):E111-40. Pain Physician. 2010. PMID: 20309388 Review.
Cited by
- How are family physicians managing osteoporosis? Qualitative study of their experiences and educational needs.
Jaglal SB, Carroll J, Hawker G, McIsaac WJ, Jaakkimainen L, Cadarette SM, Cameron C, Davis D. Jaglal SB, et al. Can Fam Physician. 2003 Apr;49:462-8. Can Fam Physician. 2003. PMID: 12729242 Free PMC article. - Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience.
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Claxton KP, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055-68. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006. PMID: 17067191 Review. - Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD.
Puhan MA, Yu T, Boyd CM, Ter Riet G. Puhan MA, et al. BMC Med. 2015 Jul 2;13:157. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0398-0. BMC Med. 2015. PMID: 26137986 Free PMC article. - The economic consequences of practice style variation in providing medical interventions: A systematic review of the literature.
Nouhi M, Hadian M, Jahangiri R, Hakimzadeh M, Gray S, Olyaeemanesh A. Nouhi M, et al. J Educ Health Promot. 2019 Jun 27;8:119. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_386_18. eCollection 2019. J Educ Health Promot. 2019. PMID: 31334271 Free PMC article. Review. - Value of Information: A Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste.
Minelli C, Baio G. Minelli C, et al. PLoS Med. 2015 Sep 29;12(9):e1001882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001882. eCollection 2015 Sep. PLoS Med. 2015. PMID: 26418866 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources