Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions

To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers. Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions. We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of managed care 2016-09, Vol.22 (9), p.e323-e328
Hauptverfasser: Chambers, James D, Chenoweth, Matthew D, Neumann, Peter J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e328
container_issue 9
container_start_page e323
container_title The American journal of managed care
container_volume 22
creator Chambers, James D
Chenoweth, Matthew D
Neumann, Peter J
description To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers. Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions. We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of August 1, 2014-with respect to technology type (eg, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, surgeries). We identified the interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies and compared payer coverage determinations in terms of whether they covered the intervention and the evidence they reported reviewing. Eighteen payers made their coverage policies publicly available and 17 reported the evidence they reviewed in formulating policies. The types of technologies considered varied across payers, although most focused on devices and diagnostics. Of the 28 interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies, the coverage of 9 varied (ie, some payers covered the intervention and others did not). On average, payers reported reviewing clinical studies in 87% of coverage policies (range = 25%-100%). Two payers did not report reviewing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in any coverage policies, and 9 reported reviewing such evidence in at least half of their policies. Fourteen payers reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses at least some of the time, with frequency ranging from 8% to 43%. Commercial payers' coverage decisions did not appear to reflect direct input from patients or patient advocates, at least as stated in published coverage policies. Coverage of medical interventions varies across US private payers. Payers often report reviewing different evidence when formulating coverage policies, but do not report considering input directly from patients in evidence assessments.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1823034178</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1823034178</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-a3dac1e5bad4122cbdaa15613b6425f244712534847ea386dd0a4e5da84809dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0EtLw0AQAOBFFFurf0ECHvQS2Fc2m6MUH4WKB-05THanZUuSjbtJof_eFevF0wzDx7zOyJxVQuVcVfw85VTrnHIuZ-Qqxj2lQmmpLsmMl0pxUak5Wb3BMLh-l20-MuO7DoNx0GYDHDHE-1Q6YIAdZoNvnXEYs60PWYfWmaRcP2I4YD8638drcrGFNuLNKS7I5vnpc_mar99fVsvHdT6kiWMOwoJhWDRgJePcNBaAFYqJRklebLmUJeOFkFqWCEIraylILCxoqWlljViQh9--Q_BfE8ax7lw02LbQo59izTQXVEhW6kTv_tG9n0KftvtRRSV-JiV1e1JTky6rh-A6CMf670niGwmtYzU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1825931253</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB Free E-Journals</source><creator>Chambers, James D ; Chenoweth, Matthew D ; Neumann, Peter J</creator><creatorcontrib>Chambers, James D ; Chenoweth, Matthew D ; Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><description>To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers. Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions. We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of August 1, 2014-with respect to technology type (eg, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, surgeries). We identified the interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies and compared payer coverage determinations in terms of whether they covered the intervention and the evidence they reported reviewing. Eighteen payers made their coverage policies publicly available and 17 reported the evidence they reviewed in formulating policies. The types of technologies considered varied across payers, although most focused on devices and diagnostics. Of the 28 interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies, the coverage of 9 varied (ie, some payers covered the intervention and others did not). On average, payers reported reviewing clinical studies in 87% of coverage policies (range = 25%-100%). Two payers did not report reviewing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in any coverage policies, and 9 reported reviewing such evidence in at least half of their policies. Fourteen payers reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses at least some of the time, with frequency ranging from 8% to 43%. Commercial payers' coverage decisions did not appear to reflect direct input from patients or patient advocates, at least as stated in published coverage policies. Coverage of medical interventions varies across US private payers. Payers often report reviewing different evidence when formulating coverage policies, but do not report considering input directly from patients in evidence assessments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1088-0224</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-2692</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27662396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</publisher><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Decision Making ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Health administration ; Health insurance ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement ; Mapping ; Medical equipment ; Medical procedures ; United States</subject><ispartof>The American journal of managed care, 2016-09, Vol.22 (9), p.e323-e328</ispartof><rights>Copyright Intellisphere, LLC Sep 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27662396$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chambers, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenoweth, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><title>Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions</title><title>The American journal of managed care</title><addtitle>Am J Manag Care</addtitle><description>To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers. Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions. We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of August 1, 2014-with respect to technology type (eg, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, surgeries). We identified the interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies and compared payer coverage determinations in terms of whether they covered the intervention and the evidence they reported reviewing. Eighteen payers made their coverage policies publicly available and 17 reported the evidence they reviewed in formulating policies. The types of technologies considered varied across payers, although most focused on devices and diagnostics. Of the 28 interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies, the coverage of 9 varied (ie, some payers covered the intervention and others did not). On average, payers reported reviewing clinical studies in 87% of coverage policies (range = 25%-100%). Two payers did not report reviewing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in any coverage policies, and 9 reported reviewing such evidence in at least half of their policies. Fourteen payers reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses at least some of the time, with frequency ranging from 8% to 43%. Commercial payers' coverage decisions did not appear to reflect direct input from patients or patient advocates, at least as stated in published coverage policies. Coverage of medical interventions varies across US private payers. Payers often report reviewing different evidence when formulating coverage policies, but do not report considering input directly from patients in evidence assessments.</description><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage</subject><subject>Insurance, Health, Reimbursement</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical procedures</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1088-0224</issn><issn>1936-2692</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0EtLw0AQAOBFFFurf0ECHvQS2Fc2m6MUH4WKB-05THanZUuSjbtJof_eFevF0wzDx7zOyJxVQuVcVfw85VTrnHIuZ-Qqxj2lQmmpLsmMl0pxUak5Wb3BMLh-l20-MuO7DoNx0GYDHDHE-1Q6YIAdZoNvnXEYs60PWYfWmaRcP2I4YD8638drcrGFNuLNKS7I5vnpc_mar99fVsvHdT6kiWMOwoJhWDRgJePcNBaAFYqJRklebLmUJeOFkFqWCEIraylILCxoqWlljViQh9--Q_BfE8ax7lw02LbQo59izTQXVEhW6kTv_tG9n0KftvtRRSV-JiV1e1JTky6rh-A6CMf670niGwmtYzU</recordid><startdate>20160901</startdate><enddate>20160901</enddate><creator>Chambers, James D</creator><creator>Chenoweth, Matthew D</creator><creator>Neumann, Peter J</creator><general>MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160901</creationdate><title>Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions</title><author>Chambers, James D ; Chenoweth, Matthew D ; Neumann, Peter J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-a3dac1e5bad4122cbdaa15613b6425f244712534847ea386dd0a4e5da84809dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage</topic><topic>Insurance, Health, Reimbursement</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical procedures</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chambers, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenoweth, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Peter J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of managed care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chambers, James D</au><au>Chenoweth, Matthew D</au><au>Neumann, Peter J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of managed care</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Manag Care</addtitle><date>2016-09-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e323</spage><epage>e328</epage><pages>e323-e328</pages><issn>1088-0224</issn><eissn>1936-2692</eissn><abstract>To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers. Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions. We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of August 1, 2014-with respect to technology type (eg, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, surgeries). We identified the interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies and compared payer coverage determinations in terms of whether they covered the intervention and the evidence they reported reviewing. Eighteen payers made their coverage policies publicly available and 17 reported the evidence they reviewed in formulating policies. The types of technologies considered varied across payers, although most focused on devices and diagnostics. Of the 28 interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies, the coverage of 9 varied (ie, some payers covered the intervention and others did not). On average, payers reported reviewing clinical studies in 87% of coverage policies (range = 25%-100%). Two payers did not report reviewing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in any coverage policies, and 9 reported reviewing such evidence in at least half of their policies. Fourteen payers reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses at least some of the time, with frequency ranging from 8% to 43%. Commercial payers' coverage decisions did not appear to reflect direct input from patients or patient advocates, at least as stated in published coverage policies. Coverage of medical interventions varies across US private payers. Payers often report reviewing different evidence when formulating coverage policies, but do not report considering input directly from patients in evidence assessments.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</pub><pmid>27662396</pmid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1088-0224
ispartof The American journal of managed care, 2016-09, Vol.22 (9), p.e323-e328
issn 1088-0224
1936-2692
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1823034178
source MEDLINE; EZB Free E-Journals
subjects Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Making
Evidence-Based Medicine
Health administration
Health insurance
Humans
Insurance Coverage
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement
Mapping
Medical equipment
Medical procedures
United States
title Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T14%3A05%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mapping%20US%20commercial%20payers'%20coverage%20policies%20for%20medical%20interventions&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20managed%20care&rft.au=Chambers,%20James%20D&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e323&rft.epage=e328&rft.pages=e323-e328&rft.issn=1088-0224&rft.eissn=1936-2692&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1823034178%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1825931253&rft_id=info:pmid/27662396&rfr_iscdi=true