An article in today’s New York Times discusses some of the issues inherent in the introduction of new medical devices and the quest for insurance reimbursement for same. Predictably, a spine surgeon accuses insurers of refusing to reimburse just to save money, insurers say they won’t pay until the device is proven more effective than alternatives, the manufacturer touts supportive studies and ignores less supportive data, and patients are completely confused.
The article does an excellent job of laying out the issues in an even-handed manner, and actually alludes to the significance of any new technology’s demonstrated ability to improve on the present “state of the art” in the reimbursement decision process. However, that is about as far as it goes. The article, and other commentary in California HealthLine, does not delve into other alternative treatments and their associated benefits and costs for conditions addressed by devices such as artificial disks, stents, and pacemakers.
It strikes me that device manufacturers certainly have this kind of information, as it is likely part of whatever studies they do. If that assumption is correct, the data is either not reported, was not used by the reporter, or was inconclusive. is no discussion about the potential for the device to replace other medical treatments (e.g. pain meds, therapy, etc.).
Reimbursement decisions are one of, if not the key success measures for new technology – and the way to get payers to cover these new devices is to show the impact on patient outcomes, functionality, and/or lifestyle improvements as well as the elimination of other medical treatment and the costs thereof.
I must be missing something here.
What does this mean for you?
Before approving a new technology for reimbursement, ask what the impact on patient outcomes is, in addition to what other services/devices/procedures it replaces.
Jul
6
