Garrison Louis P, Pauly Mark V, Willke Richard J, Neumann Peter J
The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Health Care Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.006.
The second section of our Special Task Force builds on the discussion of value and perspective in the previous article of the report by 1) defining a health economics approach to the concept of value in health care systems; 2) discussing the relationship of value to perspective and decision context, that is, how recently proposed value frameworks vary by the types of decisions being made and by the stakeholders involved; 3) describing the patient perspective on value because the patient is a key stakeholder, but one also wearing the hat of a health insurance purchaser; and 4) discussing how value is relevant in the market-based US system of mixed private and public insurance, and differs from its use in single-payer systems. The five recent value frameworks that motivated this report vary in the types of decisions they intend to inform, ranging from coverage, access, and pricing decisions to those defining appropriate clinical pathways and to supporting provider-clinician shared decision making. Each of these value frameworks must be evaluated in its own decision context for its own objectives. Existing guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis emphasize the importance of clearly specifying the perspective from which the analysis is undertaken. Relevant perspectives may include, among others, 1) the health plan enrollee, 2) the patient, 3) the health plan manager, 4) the provider, 5) the technology manufacturer, 6) the specialty society, 7) government regulators, or 8) society as a whole. A valid and informative cost-effectiveness analysis could be conducted from the perspective of any of these stakeholders, depending on the decision context.
我们特别工作组的第二部分以上一篇报告文章中关于价值和视角的讨论为基础,具体内容如下:1)界定医疗保健系统中价值概念的健康经济学方法;2)讨论价值与视角及决策背景的关系,即最近提出的价值框架如何因决策类型和涉及的利益相关者而异;3)描述患者对价值的看法,因为患者是关键利益相关者,但同时也扮演着医疗保险购买者的角色;4)讨论价值在美国公私混合的市场化保险体系中的相关性,以及它与单一支付者体系中价值应用的差异。促成本报告的五个近期价值框架在其旨在为其提供信息的决策类型方面各不相同,从保险范围、可及性和定价决策到确定适当临床路径以及支持医疗服务提供者与临床医生共同决策的决策。每个价值框架都必须在其自身的决策背景下根据自身目标进行评估。现有的成本效益分析指南强调明确说明分析所采用视角的重要性。相关视角可能包括:1)健康保险计划参保人;2)患者;3)健康保险计划管理者;4)医疗服务提供者;5)技术制造商;6)专业协会;7)政府监管机构;8)整个社会等。根据决策背景,从这些利益相关者中的任何一方的视角都可以进行有效且信息丰富的成本效益分析。