Assuntos
Órgãos Governamentais/organização & administração , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Setor de Assistência à Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Serviços de Informação , Cooperação Internacional , National Center for Health Care Technology, U.S. , Setor Privado , Setor Público , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , United States Office of Technology AssessmentAssuntos
Órgãos Governamentais , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Órgãos Governamentais/economia , Humanos , Medicare/economia , National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division , National Center for Health Care Technology, U.S. , Pesquisa , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/economia , Estados Unidos , United States Office of Technology AssessmentAssuntos
Órgãos Governamentais/organização & administração , Política de Saúde , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/organização & administração , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Tomada de Decisões , National Center for Health Care Technology, U.S. , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/normas , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityRESUMO
Advances in medical technology have contributed both to the quality of health care and to its costs. The marketplace doesn't produce sufficient information to anticipate either real health or economic value. Formal assessment of new technologies for safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and cost has been unimpressively dominated by government. While new agency and institutional arrangements promise greater success, they will require a balance between public and private sector roles in procedures and financial support.
Assuntos
Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/tendências , Governo Federal , Previsões , Órgãos Governamentais , Regulamentação Governamental , National Center for Health Care Technology, U.S. , Organizações , Estados UnidosAssuntos
Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , National Academy of Sciences, U.S./organização & administração , National Center for Health Care Technology, U.S. , Estados Unidos , United States Dept. of Health and Human Services/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
Approval of a new medical device's safety and effectiveness by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is only one step in the typical device's passage into the marketplace. A review of 10 new Class II and III devices found an average of 62 months elapsing between the beginning of FDA-approved clinical trials and the device's final approval for general marketing. However, FDA marketing approval does not mean a new device can be sold because, for many new devices, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) requests a technology assessment from the Office of Health Technology Assessment (OHTA) in order to determine whether the device's use is "reasonable and necessary" and thus appropriate for Medicare payment. The Medicare decision often guides other third parties. OHTA assessments of 93 devices and procedures required an average of 26 months to complete; of 16 FDA-approved Class III devices, OHTA reported to HCFA that insufficient data existed to recommend coverage for 12 (75 percent). Under the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for hospital care, a third step has been added to the process, consideration by the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPAC) and HCFA of the new device's impact on PPS payment rates. Further, under recent legislation, OHTA is mandated also to consider a device's cost effectiveness. Duplicative reviews of new devices should be eliminated, and until they are, medical equipment developers must recognize that delays and conflicting payment rulings may have serious impacts on the ability to market a new device.