Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 May;7(3 Suppl):18s-24s.
doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000300.

Health technology assessment and private payers' coverage of personalized medicine

Julia R Trosman  1 , Stephanie L Van Bebber, Kathryn A Phillips
Affiliations

Health technology assessment and private payers' coverage of personalized medicine

Julia R Trosman et al. J Oncol Pract. 2011 May.

Abstract

Purpose: Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an increasing role in translating emerging technologies into clinical practice and policy. Private payers are important users of HTA whose decisions impact adoption and use of new technologies. We examine the current use of HTA by private payers in coverage decisions for personalized medicine, a field that is increasingly impacting oncology practice.

Study design: Literature review and semistructured interviews.

Methods: We reviewed seven HTA organizations used by private payers in decision making and explored how HTA is used by major US private payers (n = 11) for coverage of personalized medicine.

Results: All payers used HTA in coverage decisions, but the number of HTA organizations used by an individual payer ranged from one (n = 1) to all seven (n = 1), with the majority of payers (n = 8) using three or more. Payers relied more extensively on HTAs for reviews of personalized medicine (64%) than for other technologies. Most payers (82%) equally valued expertise of reviewers and rigor of evaluation as HTA strengths, whereas genomic-specific methodology was less important. Key reported shortcomings were limited availability of reviews (73%) and limited inclusion of nonclinical factors (91%), such as cost-effectiveness or adoption of technology in clinical practice.

Conclusion: Payers use a range of HTAs in their coverage decisions related to personalized medicine, but the current state of HTA to comprehensively guide those decisions is limited. HTA organizations should address current gaps to improve their relevance to payers and clinicians. Current HTA shortcomings may also inform the national HTA agenda.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. International Network of Agencies of Health Technology Assessment. INAHTA glossary. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/Glossary/#_Health_Technology_Assessment.
    1. Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:1323–1325. - PubMed
    1. Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, et al. Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12(suppl 2):S39–S44. - PubMed
    1. Fuchs VR. The proposed government health insurance company–no substitute for real reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2273–2275. - PubMed
    1. Department of Health and Human Services. Coverage and reimbursement of genetic tests and services: Report of the Secretary's advisory committee on genetics, health, and society. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/CR_report.pdf.