Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T10:56:00.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPANDING EVIDENCE-BASED TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR COVERAGE IN WASHINGTON STATE

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Erik J. Landaas ,
Gary Franklin ,
Jeff Thompson ,
Dan Lessler ,
Josiah Morse ,
Robert Mootz ,
Steven G. Hammond  and
Sean D. Sullivan
Erik J. Landaas
Affiliation:
University of Washington School of [email protected]
Gary Franklin
Affiliation:
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Office of the Medical DirectorUniversity of Washington School of Public Health
Jeff Thompson
Affiliation:
Willis Towers Watson
Dan Lessler
Affiliation:
Washington State Health Care Authority
Josiah Morse
Affiliation:
Washington State Health Care Authority
Robert Mootz
Affiliation:
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Office of the Medical Director
Steven G. Hammond
Affiliation:
Washington State Department of Corrections
Sean D. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Washington School of Pharmacy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We describe a new evidence-based method for screening and evaluating emerging medical technologies. Washington State agencies, under legislative direction, have granted authority to its agency Medical Directors and policy leaders to make coverage decisions on medical technologies using a “dossier” process. The dossier process is employed when technology advocates or manufacturers request Washington State healthcare purchasers to pay for new and emerging technologies. This offers the advocate an opportunity to submit scientific evidence and information classically associated with a more formal health technology assessment.

Methods: The submitted information is independently reviewed and summarized for Washington State's public healthcare purchasers allowing a more standardized coverage decision for all public purchasers in Washington State.

Results: This process has allowed Washington State to make twelve evidence-based coverage decisions at a fraction of the cost of classic technology assessment. To date, of twelve reviews over 6 years, one health technology was approved for coverage, ten were not covered and one did not require a coverage decision.

Conclusions: This evidence-based dossier process has yielded high-value coverage decisions of new and emerging medical technologies for public healthcare purchasers in Washington State.

Keywords

Health technologiesDevicesEvidence-based medicineCoverage decisionsTechnology assessment
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , 2016 , pp. 140 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Prescription Drug Program legislation. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6088.SL.pdf (accessed September 30, 2015).Google Scholar
2. WA State Health Technology Assessment Program legislation. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2575-S2.SL.pdf (accessed September 30, 2015).Google Scholar
3. Franklin, G, Budenholzer, B. Implementing evidence-based health policy in Washington State. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1722–1725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Washington Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Program. http://www.hca.wa.gov/hta/Pages/index.aspx (accessed September 30, 2015)Google Scholar
5. Washington State Legislature, Medical and dental coverage – Fee for service prior authorization – Determination for payment. http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=182-501-0165 (accessed November 2, 2015).Google Scholar
6. Ramsey, SD, Luce, BR, Deyo, R, Franklin, G. The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: Facing the issues. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4 Spec No:SP188-99.Google Scholar
7. Franklin, GM, Lifka, J, Milstein, J. Device evaluation and coverage policy in workers’ compensation: Examples from Washington State. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4 Spec No:SP178-86Google Scholar
8. Blue Cross Blue Shield Center for Clinical Effectiveness (CCE). http://www.bcbs.com/cce/ (accessed July 14, 2016).Google Scholar
9. Garber, AM. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Affairs. 2001;20:62–82.Google Scholar