Factors predicting Medicare national coverage: an empirical analysis.

Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 12/2011; 50(3):249-56. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318241eb40
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Interventions considered to be particularly controversial or expected to significantly impact the Medicare program in the United States are considered in National Coverage Determinations. Medicare coverage for such interventions is limited to those deemed "reasonable and necessary" for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. What constitutes reasonable and necessary has not, however, been clearly defined.
To determine factors associated with positive National Coverage Determinations.
A dataset of coverage decisions from 1999 to 2007 (n=195) was created with the following variables: direction of coverage decision; quality of supporting evidence; availability of alternative interventions; cost-effectiveness of intervention; type of intervention; coverage requestor; and year of decision. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with positive coverage.
The following variables were independently associated with positive Medicare coverage: good or fair quality supporting evidence (adjusted odds ratio, OR=6.04, P<0.01); presence of an alternative intervention (OR=0.130, P<0.01); no associated estimate of cost-effectiveness (OR=0.190, P<0.05). In addition, in comparison with coverage decisions made in the years 1999 to 2001, those made in the years 2002 to 2003, 2004 to 2005, and 2006 to 2007, were associated with positive coverage [ORs of 0.311 (P<0.05), 0.310 (P<0.1), and 0.109 (P<0.01), respectively].
Findings suggest that good or fair quality supporting evidence is a strong predictor of positive coverage. Availability of alternative interventions, more recent decisions, and lack of an associated estimate of cost-effectiveness are associated with a decreased likelihood of positive coverage. The findings highlight Medicare's move to evidence-based coverage decisions, and suggest that coverage decisions are influenced by the availability of cost-effectiveness evidence.


Available from: James D Chambers, Jan 14, 2014
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services does not explicitly use cost-effectiveness information in national coverage determinations. The objective of this study was to illustrate potential efficiency gains from reallocating Medicare expenditures by using cost-effectiveness information, and the consequences for health gains among Medicare beneficiaries. We included national coverage determinations from 1999 through 2007. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were identified through a literature review. For coverage decisions with an associated cost-effectiveness estimate, we estimated utilization and size of the "unserved" eligible population by using a Medicare claims database (2007) and diagnostic and reimbursement codes. Technology costs originated from the cost-effectiveness literature or were estimated by using reimbursement codes. We illustrated potential aggregate health gains from increasing utilization of dominant interventions (i.e., cost saving and health increasing) and from reallocating expenditures by decreasing investment in cost-ineffective interventions and increasing investment in relatively cost-effective interventions. Complete information was available for 36 interventions. Increasing investment in dominant interventions alone led to an increase of 270,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and savings of $12.9 billion. Reallocation of a broader array of interventions yielded an additional 1.8 million QALYs, approximately 0.17 QALYs per affected Medicare beneficiary. Compared with the distribution of resources prior to reallocation, following reallocation a greater proportion was directed to oncology, diagnostic imaging/tests, and the most prevalent diseases. A smaller proportion of resources went to cardiology, treatments (including drugs, surgeries, and medical devices, as opposed to nontreatments such as preventive services), and the least prevalent diseases. Using cost-effectiveness information has the potential to increase the aggregate health of Medicare beneficiaries while maintaining existing spending levels.
    Value in Health 06/2013; 16(4):629-638. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.011 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 07/2013; 105(15). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djt198 · 14.07 Impact Factor