将比较效果研究转化为医疗补助支付政策：医学及药学主任的观点
Translating comparative effectiveness research into Medicaid payment policy: views from medical and pharmacy directors.
作者信息
Weissman Joel S, Westrich Kimberly, Hargraves J Lee, Pearson Steven D, Dubois Robert, Emond Sarah, Olufajo Olubode A
机构信息
Center for Surgery & Public Health, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
出版信息
J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Mar;4(2):79-88. doi: 10.2217/cer.14.68.
BACKGROUND
As the USA seeks to expand the conduct and dissemination of comparative effectiveness research (CER), views of key stakeholders will help guide the way.
METHODS
We surveyed 60 medical and pharmacy directors from 46 state Medicaid programs.
RESULTS
Over 90% felt that CER would lead to better clinical decision-making and overall value within 5 years and were willing to consider cost-effectiveness in setting medical policy. However, perceived poor quality, inconclusive research, restrictive legislative mandates, lack of budget impact and coverage recommendations, and lack of an independent body to interpret study results were major barriers cited to using CER evidence.
CONCLUSION
Given the significant resources being invested in CER, it is critical that these barriers are overcome to maximize its usefulness for stakeholders.
背景
随着美国寻求扩大比较效果研究（CER）的开展与传播，关键利益相关者的观点将有助于指引方向。
方法
我们对来自46个州医疗补助计划的60位医学和药学主任进行了调查。
结果
超过90%的人认为CER将在5年内带来更好的临床决策和整体价值，并愿意在制定医疗政策时考虑成本效益。然而，质量欠佳、研究结果不确定、立法指令受限、缺乏预算影响和覆盖范围建议，以及缺乏独立机构来解读研究结果，是使用CER证据时被提及的主要障碍。
结论
鉴于在CER方面投入了大量资源，克服这些障碍以最大限度地提高其对利益相关者的有用性至关重要。
Zotero 插件