Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 225
Filter
Add more filters

Publication year range
1.
Health Care Manag Sci ; 22(2): 336-349, 2019 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29508164

ABSTRACT

Most healthcare organizations (HCOs) engage Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) as an outsourcing strategy to secure their supplies and materials. When an HCO outsources the procurement function to a GPO, this GPO will directly interact with the HCO's supplier on the HCO's behalf. This study investigates how an HCO's dependence on a GPO affects supply chain relationships and power in the healthcare medical equipment supply chain. Hypotheses are tested through factor analysis and structural equation modeling, using primary survey data from HCO procurement managers. An HCO's dependence on a GPO is found to be positively associated with a GPO's reliance on mediated power, but, surprisingly, negatively associated with a GPO's mediated power. Furthermore, analysis indicates that an HCO's dependence on a GPO is positively associated with an HCO's dependence on a GPO-contracted Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). HCO reliance on GPOs may lead to a buyer's dependence trap, where HCOs are increasingly dependent on GPOs and OEMs. Implications for HCO procurement managers and recommended steps for mitigation are offered. Power-dependence relationships in the medical equipment supply chain are not consistent with relationships in other, more traditional, supply chains. While dependence in a supply chain relationship typically leads to an increase in reliance on mediated power, GPO-dependent HCOs instead perceive a decrease in GPO mediated power. Furthermore, HCOs that rely on procurement service from GPOs are increasingly dependent on the OEMs.


Subject(s)
Equipment and Supplies, Hospital/supply & distribution , Group Purchasing/organization & administration , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/supply & distribution , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital/economics , Group Purchasing/economics , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Outsourced Services/economics , Outsourced Services/organization & administration
2.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol ; 29(8): 1631-1637, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31350650

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Healthcare facilities could minimize the cost of surgical instrument and implant processing by using single-use devices. The main objective was to prospectively compare the total cost of a single-use and reusable device used in short lumbar spine fusion. METHODS: A 1-year, single-centre, prospective study was performed on patients requiring a one- or two-level lumbar arthrodesis. Patients were randomized in two groups treated with either reusable or single-use device. A cost minimization analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach from a hospital perspective. Every step of the preparation process was timed and costed based on hourly wages of hospital employees, cleaning supplies and hospital waste costs. RESULTS: Forty cases were evaluated. No significant difference in operation time was noted (reusable 176.1 ± 68.4 min; single use 190.4 ± 71.7 min; p = 0.569). Mean processing time for single-use devices was lower than for reusable devices (33 min vs. 176 min) representing a cost of 14€ versus 58€ (p < 0.05). Pre-/post-sterilization and spinal set recomposing steps were the most time-consuming in reusable device group. A total cost saving of 181€ per intervention resulted from the use and processing of the single-use device considering an additional sterilization cost of 137€ with the reusable device. The weight of the reusable device was 42 kg for three containers and 1.2 kg for the single-use device. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the absence of re-sterilization, single-use devices in one- and two-level lumbar fusion allow significant money and time savings. They may also avoid delaying surgery in case of reusable device unavailability.


Subject(s)
Disposable Equipment/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data , Spinal Fusion/economics , Spinal Fusion/instrumentation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Costs and Cost Analysis/methods , Female , Humans , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Random Allocation , Sterilization/economics , Time and Motion Studies
3.
Fed Regist ; 83(92): 21912-25, 2018 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30016834

ABSTRACT

This interim final rule with comment period makes technical amendments to the regulation to reflect the extension of the transition period from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016 that was mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act for phasing in fee schedule adjustments for certain durable medical equipment (DME) and enteral nutrition paid in areas not subject to the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). In addition, this interim final rule with comment period amends the regulation to resume the transition period's blended fee schedule rates for items furnished in rural areas and non-contiguous areas (Alaska, Hawaii, and United States territories) not subject to the CBP from June 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. This interim final rule with comment period also makes technical amendments to existing regulations for DMEPOS items and services to reflect the exclusion of infusion drugs used with DME from the DMEPOS CBP.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Fee Schedules/economics , Fee Schedules/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Rural Population , United States
4.
Fed Regist ; 83(108): 25947-9, 2018 Jun 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30019872

ABSTRACT

This document announces the addition of 31 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes to the Required Prior Authorization List of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Items that require prior authorization as a condition of payment. Prior authorization for these codes will be implemented nationwide.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prostheses and Implants/economics , Humans , Insurance Benefits , Insurance Coverage , United States
5.
Fed Regist ; 83(220): 56922-7073, 2018 Nov 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30457290

ABSTRACT

This final rule updates and makes revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2019. This rule also updates the payment rate for renal dialysis services furnished by an ESRD facility to individuals with acute kidney injury (AKI). In addition, it updates and rebases the ESRD market basket for CY 2019. This rule also updates requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP), and makes technical amendments to correct existing regulations related to the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) for certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS). Finally, this rule finalizes changes to bidding and pricing methodologies under the DMEPOS competitive bidding program; adjustments to DMEPOS fee schedule amounts using information from competitive bidding for items furnished from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020; new payment classes for oxygen and oxygen equipment and a new methodology for ensuring that new payment classes for oxygen and oxygen equipment are budget neutral; payment rules for multi- function ventilators or ventilators that perform functions of other durable medical equipment (DME); and revises the payment methodology for mail order items furnished in the Northern Mariana Islands. This rule also includes a summary of the feedback received for the request for information related to establishing fee schedule amounts for new DMEPOS items and services.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Fee Schedules/economics , Fee Schedules/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/economics , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Renal Dialysis/economics , Competitive Bidding/economics , Competitive Bidding/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , United States
7.
Fed Regist ; 81(214): 77834-969, 2016 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27905888

ABSTRACT

This rule updates and makes revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System (PPS) for calendar year 2017. It also finalizes policies for coverage and payment for renal dialysis services furnished by an ESRD facility to individuals with acute kidney injury. This rule also sets forth requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, including the inclusion of new quality measures beginning with payment year (PY) 2020 and provides updates to programmatic policies for the PY 2018 and PY 2019 ESRD QIP. This rule also implements statutory requirements for bid surety bonds and state licensure for the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). This rule also expands suppliers' appeal rights in the event of a breach of contract action taken by CMS, by revising the appeals regulation to extend the appeals process to all types of actions taken by CMS for a supplier's breach of contract, rather than limit an appeal for the termination of a competitive bidding contract. The rule also finalizes changes to the methodologies for adjusting fee schedule amounts for DMEPOS using information from CBPs and for submitting bids and establishing single payment amounts under the CBPs for certain groupings of similar items with different features to address price inversions. Final changes also are made to the method for establishing bid limits for items under the DMEPOS CBPs. In addition, this rule summarizes comments on the impacts of coordinating Medicare and Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment for dually eligible beneficiaries. Finally, this rule also summarizes comments received in response to a request for information related to the Comprehensive ESRD Care Model and future payment models affecting renal care.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/economics , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Kidney Failure, Chronic/economics , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Reimbursement, Incentive/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/legislation & jurisprudence , Renal Dialysis/economics , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Competitive Bidding/economics , Competitive Bidding/legislation & jurisprudence , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Fee Schedules/economics , Fee Schedules/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prostheses and Implants/economics , United States
9.
Fed Regist ; 80(250): 81673-707, 2015 Dec 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26717582

ABSTRACT

This final rule establishes a prior authorization program for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) items that are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization. This rule defines unnecessary utilization and creates a new requirement that claims for certain DMEPOS items must have an associated provisional affirmed prior authorization decision as a condition of payment. This rule also adds the review contractor's decision regarding prior authorization of coverage of DMEPOS items to the list of actions that are not initial determinations and therefore not appealable.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Equipment and Supplies/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prostheses and Implants/economics , Humans , Reimbursement Mechanisms/economics , Reimbursement Mechanisms/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
10.
Intern Med J ; 44(1): 50-6, 2014 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24112296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence that direct ultrasound localisation for pleural aspiration reduces complications, but this practice is not universal in Australia and New Zealand. AIMS: To describe the current utilisation and logistical barriers to the use of direct ultrasound localisation for pleural aspiration by respiratory physicians from Australia and New Zealand, and to determine the cost benefits of procuring equipment and training resources in chest ultrasound. METHODS: We surveyed all adult respiratory physician members of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand regarding their use of direct ultrasound localisation for pleural aspiration. We performed a cost-benefit analysis for acquiring bedside ultrasound equipment and estimated the capacity of available ultrasound training. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six of 275 respiratory physicians responded (53% response). One-third (33.6%) of respondents do not undertake direct ultrasound localisation. Lack of training/expertise (44.6%) and lack of access to ultrasound equipment (41%) were the most frequently reported barriers to performing direct ultrasound localisation. An average delay of 2 or more days to obtain an ultrasound performed in radiology was reported in 42.7% of respondents. Decision-tree analysis demonstrated that clinician-performed direct ultrasound localisation for pleural aspiration is cost-beneficial, with recovery of initial capital expenditure within 6 months. Ultrasound training infrastructure is already available to up-skill all respiratory physicians within 2 years and is cost-neutral. CONCLUSION: Many respiratory physicians have not adopted direct ultrasound localisation for pleural aspiration because they lack equipment and expertise. However, purchase of ultrasound equipment is cost-beneficial, and there is already sufficient capacity to deliver accredited ultrasound training through existing services.


Subject(s)
Biopsy, Needle/methods , Pleural Effusion/pathology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Pulmonary Medicine/methods , Ultrasonography, Interventional , Australasia , Biopsy, Needle/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Data Collection , Decision Trees , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/supply & distribution , Education, Medical, Continuing , Health Expenditures , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Pleural Effusion/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Systems/economics , Point-of-Care Systems/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Professional Practice/classification , Pulmonary Medicine/economics , Pulmonary Medicine/education , Pulmonary Medicine/instrumentation , Ultrasonography, Interventional/economics , Ultrasonography, Interventional/instrumentation , Ultrasonography, Interventional/statistics & numerical data
11.
Fed Regist ; 79(250): 78707-14, 2014 Dec 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25562895

ABSTRACT

This final rule modifies the TRICARE regulation to add a definition of assistive technology (AT) devices for purposes of benefit coverage under the TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) Program and to amend the definitions of durable equipment (DE) and durable medical equipment (DME) to better conform the language in the regulation to the statute. The final rule amends the language that specifically limits ordering or prescribing of DME to only a physician under the Basic Program, as this amendment will allow certain other TRICARE authorized individual professional providers, acting within the scope of their licensure, to order or prescribe DME. This final rule also incorporates a policy clarification relating to luxury, deluxe, or immaterial features of equipment or devices. That is, TRICARE cannot reimburse for the luxury, deluxe, or immaterial features of equipment or devices, but can reimburse for the base or basic equipment or device that meet the beneficiary's needs. Beneficiaries may choose to pay the provider for the luxury, deluxe, or immaterial features if they desire their equipment or device to have these "extra features."


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Health Benefit Plans, Employee/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Benefits/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Prescriptions/standards , Self-Help Devices/economics , Humans , Licensure , United States
12.
Fed Regist ; 79(215): 66119-265, 2014 Nov 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25376058

ABSTRACT

This final rule will update and make revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2015. This rule also finalizes requirements for the ESRD quality incentive program (QIP), including for payment years (PYs) 2017 and 2018. This rule will also make a technical correction to remove outdated terms and definitions. In addition, this final rule sets forth the methodology for adjusting Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) fee schedule payment amounts using information from the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program (CBP); makes alternative payment rules for certain DME under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP; clarifies the statutory Medicare hearing aid coverage exclusion and specifies devices not subject to the hearing aid exclusion; will not update the definition of minimal self-adjustment; clarifies the Change of Ownership (CHOW) and provides for an exception to the current requirements; revises the appeal provisions for termination of a CBP contract, including the beneficiary notification requirement under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP, and makes a technical change to the regulation related to the conditions for awarding contracts for furnishing infusion drugs under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Kidney Failure, Chronic/economics , Medicare/economics , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/economics , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality Assurance, Health Care/economics , Quality Assurance, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Competitive Bidding/economics , Competitive Bidding/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Kidney Failure, Chronic/drug therapy , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prostheses and Implants/economics , United States
13.
Pediatr Emerg Care ; 29(7): 806-7, 2013 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23823258

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Emergency Nursing Association have developed consensus guidelines for pediatric emergency department policies, procedures, supplies, and equipment. Kentucky received funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration through the Emergency Medical Services for Children program to pilot test the guidelines with the state's hospitals. In addition to providing baseline data regarding institutional alignment with the guidelines, the survey supported development of grant funding to procure missing items. METHODS: Survey administration was undertaken by staff and members of the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services for Children work group and faculty and staff of the University of Kentucky College of Public Health and the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Responses were solicited primarily online with repeated reminders and offers of assistance. RESULTS: Seventy respondents completed the survey section on supplies and equipment either online or by fax. Results identified items unavailable at 20% or more of responding facilities, primarily the smallest sizes of equipment. The survey section addressing policy and procedure received only 16 responses. CONCLUSIONS: Kentucky facilities were reasonably well equipped by national standards, but rural facilities and small hospitals did not stock the smallest equipment sizes because of low reported volume of pediatric emergency department cases. Thus, a centralized procurement process that gives them access to an adequate range of pediatric supplies and equipment would support capacity building for the care of children across the entire state. Grant proposals were received from 28 facilities in the first 3 months of funding availability.


Subject(s)
Child Health Services/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Guideline Adherence , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Child , Child Health Services/economics , Child Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Disposable Equipment/economics , Disposable Equipment/standards , Disposable Equipment/supply & distribution , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/standards , Durable Medical Equipment/supply & distribution , Emergency Service, Hospital/economics , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Equipment Design , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital/economics , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital/standards , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital/supply & distribution , Financing, Government , Health Care Surveys , Health Services Needs and Demand , Hospitals, Rural/economics , Hospitals, Rural/standards , Hospitals, Rural/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, Urban/economics , Hospitals, Urban/standards , Hospitals, Urban/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Kentucky , Pilot Projects
14.
Fed Regist ; 78(231): 72155-253, 2013 Dec 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24294636

ABSTRACT

This rule updates and makes revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2014. This rule also sets forth requirements for the ESRD quality incentive program (QIP), including for payment year (PY) 2016 and beyond. In addition, this rule clarifies the grandfathering provision related to the 3-year minimum lifetime requirement (MLR) for Durable Medical Equipment (DME), and provides clarification of the definition of routinely purchased DME. This rule also implements budget-neutral fee schedules for splints and casts, and intraocular lenses (IOLs) inserted in a physician's office. Finally, this rule makes a few technical amendments and corrections to existing regulations related to payment for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) items and services.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Equipment and Supplies/economics , Kidney Failure, Chronic/economics , Medicare/economics , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Prostheses and Implants/economics , Quality Assurance, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/economics , Quality Indicators, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
15.
Fed Regist ; 77(50): 14989-94, 2012 Mar 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22420064

ABSTRACT

This final rule removes the definition of "direct solicitation'' and allows DMEPOS suppliers, including DMEPOS competitive bidding program contract suppliers, to contract with licensed agents to provide DMEPOS supplies, unless prohibited by State law. It also removes the requirement for compliance with local zoning laws and modifies certain State licensure requirement exceptions.


Subject(s)
Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Marketing of Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prostheses and Implants/economics , Competitive Bidding/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Licensure/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/economics , United States
16.
Fed Regist ; 77(222): 68891-9373, 2012 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23155552

ABSTRACT

This major final rule with comment period addresses changes to the physician fee schedule, payments for Part B drugs, and other Medicare Part B payment policies to ensure that our payment systems are updated to reflect changes in medical practice and the relative value of services. It also implements provisions of the Affordable Care Act by establishing a face-to-face encounter as a condition of payment for certain durable medical equipment (DME) items. In addition, it implements statutory changes regarding the termination of non-random prepayment review. This final rule with comment period also includes a discussion in the Supplementary Information regarding various programs . (See the Table of Contents for a listing of the specific issues addressed in this final rule with comment period.)


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Electronic Health Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare Part B/economics , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/economics , Prospective Payment System/economics , Quality Assurance, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality Indicators, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Rehabilitation Centers/economics , Surgicenters/economics , Ambulatory Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Current Procedural Terminology , Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System , Humans , Medicare Part B/legislation & jurisprudence , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Pilot Projects , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Rehabilitation Centers/legislation & jurisprudence , Relative Value Scales , Surgicenters/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
17.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 28(1): 78-83, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34949115

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Performance-based risksharing arrangements (PBRSAs) have continued to emerge and evolve over the last 2 decades. To date, most of the attention and available literature have focused on pharmaceuticals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status and trends regarding the use of PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices using the University of Washington Performance Based Risk Sharing Database. We augmented the review using PubMed, Google, and payer and industry websites. Key words and phrases such as outcomes-based, value-based, coverage with evidence development, performance-based, and risk-sharing were used in combination with device or diagnostic. To characterize arrangements in terms of product and market attributes, we extracted data for each product, including arrangement descriptions, arrangement type, year, therapeutic area, product manufacturer, payer, and product type. Arrangements were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two arrangements were identified between the years 2001 and 2019, with 30 (57.7%) for devices and 22 (42.3%) for diagnostic tests. Among these, 23 (44.2%) were coverage with evidence development (CED), only in research; 17 (32.7%) were performance-linked reimbursement (PLR); and 12 (23.1%) were CED, only with research. The majority of arrangements for devices were developed in cardiology (12, 40%), endocrinology (4, 13.3%), and radiology (3, 10%). Most of arrangements for identified diagnostic tests were in oncology (17, 77.3%). Over time, there has been a trend towards increasing adoption of PLR and CED, only with research, especially since 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to comprehensively review PBRSA arrangements for diagnostics and devices in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that there is substantial PBRSA activity for devices and diagnostics, and the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and variety. These arrangements have implications for managed care into the future as the health care system shifts towards value-based care and value-based pricing to contain cost for payers and ensure value in the patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/economics , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Risk Sharing, Financial , Databases, Factual , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Humans , Medical Oncology , United States
18.
PLoS Med ; 8(11): e1001128, 2011 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22140363

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global HIV prevention community is implementing voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programs across eastern and southern Africa, with a goal of reaching 80% coverage in adult males by 2015. Successful implementation will depend on the accessibility of commodities essential for VMMC programming and the appropriate allocation of resources to support the VMMC supply chain. For this, the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, in collaboration with the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, has developed a standard list of commodities for VMMC programs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This list of commodities was used to inform program planning for a 1-y program to circumcise 152,000 adult men in Swaziland. During this process, additional key commodities were identified, expanding the standard list to include commodities for waste management, HIV counseling and testing, and the treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The approximate costs for the procurement of commodities, management of a supply chain, and waste disposal, were determined for the VMMC program in Swaziland using current market prices of goods and services. Previous costing studies of VMMC programs did not capture supply chain costs, nor the full range of commodities needed for VMMC program implementation or waste management. Our calculations indicate that depending upon the volume of services provided, supply chain and waste management, including commodities and associated labor, contribute between US$58.92 and US$73.57 to the cost of performing one adult male circumcision in Swaziland. CONCLUSIONS: Experience with the VMMC program in Swaziland indicates that supply chain and waste management add approximately US$60 per circumcision, nearly doubling the total per procedure cost estimated previously; these additional costs are used to inform the estimate of per procedure costs modeled by Njeuhmeli et al. in "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Modeling the Impact and Cost of Expanding Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa." Program planners and policy makers should consider the significant contribution of supply chain and waste management to VMMC program costs as they determine future resource needs for VMMC programs.


Subject(s)
Circumcision, Male/economics , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Medical Waste Disposal/economics , Preventive Health Services/economics , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/prevention & control , Adult , Africa, Eastern/epidemiology , Africa, Southern/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Directive Counseling/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , HIV Infections/economics , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Health Care Costs , Humans , Male , Medical Waste Disposal/standards , Preventive Health Services/organization & administration , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/economics , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology
19.
Fed Regist ; 76(218): 70228-316, 2011 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22103020

ABSTRACT

This final rule updates and makes certain revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2012. We are also finalizing the interim final rule with comment period published on April 6, 2011, regarding the transition budget-neutrality adjustment under the ESRD PPS,. This final rule also sets forth requirements for the ESRD quality incentive program (QIP) for payment years (PYs) 2013 and 2014. In addition, this final rule revises the ambulance fee schedule regulations to conform to statutory changes. This final rule also revises the definition of durable medical equipment (DME) by adding a 3-year minimum lifetime requirement (MLR) that must be met by an item or device in order to be considered durable for the purpose of classifying the item under the Medicare benefit category for DME. Finally, this final rule implements certain provisions of section 154 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) related to the durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Acquisition Program and responds to comments received on an interim final rule published January 16, 2009, that implemented these provisions of MIPPA effective April 18, 2009. (See the Table of Contents for a listing of the specific issues addressed in this final rule.)


Subject(s)
Ambulances/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Medicare/economics , Prospective Payment System/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/economics , Renal Insufficiency/economics , Economic Competition , Humans , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Reimbursement, Incentive/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
20.
Fed Regist ; 76(228): 73026-474, 2011 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22145186

ABSTRACT

This final rule with comment period addresses changes to the physician fee schedule and other Medicare Part B payment policies to ensure that our payment systems are updated to reflect changes in medical practice and the relative value of services. It also addresses, implements or discusses certain statutory provisions including provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act) and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008. In addition, this final rule with comment period discusses payments for Part B drugs; Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Signature on Requisition; Physician Quality Reporting System; the Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive Program; the Physician Resource-Use Feedback Program and the value modifier; productivity adjustment for ambulatory surgical center payment system and the ambulance, clinical laboratory, and durable medical equipment prosthetics orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) fee schedules; and other Part B related issues.


Subject(s)
Ambulances/economics , Durable Medical Equipment/economics , Fee Schedules/economics , Laboratories/economics , Medicare Part B/legislation & jurisprudence , Orthotic Devices/economics , Prospective Payment System/economics , Surgicenters/economics , Ambulances/legislation & jurisprudence , Electronic Prescribing/economics , Fee Schedules/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Resources/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Laboratories/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare Part B/economics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Physician Incentive Plans/economics , Physician Incentive Plans/legislation & jurisprudence , Prospective Payment System/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality of Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Relative Value Scales , Surgicenters/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL