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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Canadian and US health systems have often been characterized as having vastly different approaches to the financing and delivery of healthcare, with Canada portrayed as more reliant on rationing based on costs. In this article, we examine the similarities and differences between the two countries, the evolution and current role of health economic evaluation, and the roles played by health economists. We suggest both countries have similarly used economic evaluation to a limited extent for drug and immunization decisions, with variability in use more of a reflection of the incompleteness of both systems and their inherent institutional barriers rather than political ideology.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 10/2014; 13(3). DOI:10.1007/s40258-014-0133-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare currently pays for 23 preventive services in its benefits package, the majority of which were added since 2005. In the past decade, the program has transformed from one essentially administering treatment claims, to one increasingly focused on health promotion and maintenance. What is largely unappreciated is the role cost-effectiveness analysis has played in the coverage of preventive services. We review the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in Medicare coverage of preventive services and contrast it to the lack of such consideration in the coverage of treatments. While not considered for coverage of treatment, cost-effectiveness analysis played a role in the coverage of nine preventive services, and was evaluated in a number of instances when the service was not added. Pneumococcal vaccine, the first preventive service added to the benefit (1981), followed a Congressionally requested cost-effectiveness analysis, which showed it to be cost-saving. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reviewed cost-effectiveness evidence when covering preventive services such as HIV screening (2010) and screening and behavioral counseling for alcohol misuse (2011) (studies reported cost-effectiveness ratios of $55,440 per QALY, and $1755 per QALY, respectively). Cost-effectiveness analysis has played a longstanding role in informing the addition of preventive services to Medicare. It offers Medicare officials information they can use to help ensure health gains are achieved at reasonable cost. However, limiting cost-effectiveness evidence to prevention and not treatment is inconsistent and potentially inefficient. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Health Policy 11/2014; 119(2). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.012 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Medicare use different standards to determine, first, whether a new drug or medical device can be marketed to the public and, second, if the federal health insurance program will pay for use of the drug or device. This discrepancy creates hurdles and uncertainty for drug and device manufacturers. We analyzed discrepancies between FDA approval and Medicare national coverage determinations for sixty-nine devices and Part B drugs approved during 1999-2011. We found that Medicare covered FDA-approved drugs or devices 80 percent of the time. However, Medicare often added conditions beyond FDA approval, particularly for devices and most often restricting coverage to patients with the most severe disease. In some instances, Medicare was less restrictive than the FDA. Our findings highlight the importance for drug and device makers of anticipating Medicare's needs when conducting clinical studies to support their products. Our findings also provide important insights for the FDA's and Medicare's pilot parallel review program.
    Health Affairs 06/2013; 32(6):1109-15. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1073 · 4.64 Impact Factor