Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto HealthCare System, USA.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1805-11. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0647.
The major expansion of federal comparative effectiveness research launched in 2009 held the potential to supply the information needed to help slow health spending growth while improving the outcomes of care. However, when Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act one year later, it limited the role of cost analysis in the work sponsored by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Despite this restriction, cost-effectiveness analysis meets important needs and is likely to play a larger role in the future. Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, the institute can avoid commissioning cost-effectiveness analyses and still provide information bearing on the use and costs of health care interventions. This information will enable others to investigate the comparative value of these interventions. We argue that doing so is necessary to decision makers who are attempting to raise the quality of care while reining in health spending.
2009 年启动的联邦比较效果研究的重大扩展有潜力提供帮助减缓医疗支出增长同时改善医疗效果所需的信息。然而,一年后国会通过《患者保护与平价医疗法案》时,限制了患者为中心的成果研究所赞助的工作中成本分析的作用。尽管存在这种限制,但成本效益分析仍能满足重要需求,并且可能在未来发挥更大的作用。根据《平价医疗法案》的规定,研究所可以避免委托进行成本效益分析,仍然可以提供有关医疗保健干预措施的使用和成本的信息。这些信息将使其他人能够调查这些干预措施的相对价值。我们认为,对于那些试图提高医疗质量同时控制医疗支出的决策者来说,这样做是必要的。