• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Limited role of patient input in specialty drug coverage policies.患者意见在专科药物保险政策中作用有限。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Aug;27(8):1067-1076. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.8.1067.
2
Variation in health plan coverage of ESAs for anemia due to chronic kidney disease.由于慢性肾脏病导致的贫血症,各种健康计划对 ESA 的覆盖范围存在差异。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Sep;27(9):1221-1229. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.9.1221.
3
Examining US commercial health plans' use of The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's reports in specialty drug coverage decisions.考察美国商业健康计划在专科药物覆盖决策中使用临床与经济评论学会报告的情况。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Mar;29(3):257-264. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.3.257.
4
Specialty drug coverage varies between health plans' medical and pharmacy benefit policies.特殊药物的覆盖范围因健康计划的医疗和药品福利政策而异。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Jun;29(6):607-613. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.6.607.
5
US commercial health plan coverage dynamics in pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies.美国商业健康计划在肺动脉高压治疗中的覆盖动态。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2024 Jun;30(6):541-548. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.6.541.
6
Characterizing health plan evidence review practices.描述健康计划证据审查实践。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2022 Sep;28(9):1053-1058. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.9.1053.
7
Little Consistency In Evidence Cited By Commercial Plans For Specialty Drug Coverage.商业特药保险计划所引用的证据一致性较差。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Nov;38(11):1882-1886. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00201.
8
The association between US Food and Drug Administration-expedited review designations and health plan specialty drug coverage.美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)加速审查指定与健康计划专科药物覆盖范围之间的关联。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 May;29(5):464-471. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.22415. Epub 2023 Mar 29.
9
Use of prescriber requirements among US commercial health plans.美国商业健康计划中的处方要求使用情况。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Dec;27(12):1757-1762. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.12.1757.
10
Discrepancies Between FDA-Required Labeling and Evidence that Payers Cite in Drug Coverage Policies.FDA 要求的标签与支付方在药物覆盖政策中引用的证据之间的差异。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Dec;24(12):1240-1246. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.12.1240.

引用本文的文献

1
US commercial health plan coverage dynamics in pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies.美国商业健康计划在肺动脉高压治疗中的覆盖动态。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2024 Jun;30(6):541-548. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.6.541.

本文引用的文献

1
Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA.确定卫生技术评估中良好实践的需求:ISPOR 卫生技术评估理事会关于卫生技术评估中良好实践的工作组报告摘要。
Value Health. 2019 Jan;22(1):13-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010. Epub 2018 Dec 13.
2
Specialty Drug Coverage Varies Across Commercial Health Plans In The US.美国商业健康计划中的特药覆盖范围各不相同。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Jul;37(7):1041-1047. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1553.
3
AMCP Partnership Forum: Improving Quality, Value, and Outcomes with Patient-Reported Outcomes.AMCP 合作论坛:利用患者报告的结局改善质量、价值和结果。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Mar;24(3):304-310. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.17491. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
4
Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.患者报告结局纳入临床试验方案指南:SPIRIT-PRO 扩展
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483-494. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21903.
5
EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES.评估健康技术评估中的患者和公众参与倡议:对国际机构的调查。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(6):715-723. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000976. Epub 2017 Nov 10.
6
Characterizing health plan price estimator tools: findings from a national survey.描述健康计划价格估算工具:一项全国性调查的结果
Am J Manag Care. 2016 Feb;22(2):126-31.
7
Engaging Patients Across the Spectrum of Medical Product Development: View From the US Food and Drug Administration.在整个医疗产品开发过程中让患者参与进来:来自美国食品药品监督管理局的视角
JAMA. 2015 Dec 15;314(23):2499-500. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15818.
8
An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations.一项针对健康技术评估组织公众参与实践的国际调查。
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.011.
9
"It all depends": conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies.“一切都取决于”:在卫生技术评估机构背景下对公众参与的概念化。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(10):1518-26. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036. Epub 2010 Feb 12.
10
Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.关于筛查和化学预防的共同决策。美国预防服务工作组的建议方法。
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56-66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011.

患者意见在专科药物保险政策中作用有限。

Limited role of patient input in specialty drug coverage policies.

机构信息

Tufts Medical Center, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Boston, MA.

National Pharmaceutical Council.

出版信息

J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Aug;27(8):1067-1076. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.8.1067.

DOI:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.8.1067
PMID:34337996
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10391252/
Abstract

Despite increased financial contributions towards care, consumers' role in shaping their insurance benefits is unclear. To examine the role played by patient input when US commercial health plans formulate specialty drug coverage policies, along with the benefits and challenges of considering this input. We employed a parallel, mixed-methods approach. First, we reviewed health plans' policy development processes as reported on their websites. Second, we reviewed a data set of private health plan coverage decisions for specialty drugs and examined whether the evidence cited in policies included patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life endpoints) and patient-based methodological designs (eg, interviews or surveys of patients). Third, we performed a survey (N = 21 respondents) and interviews (N = 5 interviewees) with plan decision-makers to determine the current role of patient input in plan decision-making, and the benefits and challenges of incorporating this data when formulating specialty drug coverage policies. We found that plans do not commonly solicit patient input when developing coverage policies, with only two instances of limited interaction between plans and patients or members. 1,316 (9%) of the studies plans cited in their specialty drug coverage policies included at least one patient-reported endpoint, and 0.4% (N = 62) used a patient-based methodological design. Of studies with patient-based designs, 40 used interviews, 26 included surveys/questionnaires, and one concerned shared decision-making (design categories not mutually exclusive). Almost half of the survey respondents reported having never engaged with patients or members when developing coverage policies. Among respondents who had engaged with patients or members, most reported doing so only rarely. The survey and interviews highlighted various benefits of soliciting patient input, including the value of obtaining a humanistic perspective, and several challenges, including resource requirements and the quality of obtained information. We found a notable lack of patient and member engagement by commercial health plans when formulating drug coverage policies. Survey respondents and interviewees identified benefits of accounting for patients' and plan members' values and preferences in specialty drug coverage policies, but also reported a number of important challenges to doing so. National Pharmaceutical Council provided funding for this research.

摘要

尽管医疗保健的财政投入有所增加,但消费者在塑造其保险福利方面的作用尚不清楚。本研究旨在探讨当美国商业健康计划制定专科药物覆盖政策时,患者投入所扮演的角色,以及考虑这种投入的益处和挑战。我们采用了平行的混合方法。首先,我们审查了网站上报告的健康计划政策制定过程。其次,我们审查了一组私人健康计划专科药物覆盖决策的数据,并检查政策中引用的证据是否包括患者报告的结果(例如,健康相关生活质量终点)和基于患者的方法学设计(例如,患者访谈或调查)。第三,我们对计划决策者进行了调查(N = 21 名受访者)和访谈(N = 5 名受访者),以确定患者投入在计划决策中的当前作用,以及在制定专科药物覆盖政策时纳入这些数据的益处和挑战。我们发现,计划在制定覆盖政策时通常不会征求患者的意见,只有两个计划与患者或成员之间的有限互动实例。在其专科药物覆盖政策中引用的研究计划中,有 1316 项(9%)至少包括一个患者报告的终点,而 0.4%(N = 62)使用了基于患者的方法学设计。在具有基于患者的设计的研究中,40 项使用了访谈,26 项包括调查/问卷,一项涉及共同决策(设计类别不互斥)。近一半的调查受访者表示,在制定覆盖政策时从未与患者或成员接触过。在与患者或成员接触过的受访者中,大多数人表示仅偶尔这样做。调查和访谈突出了征求患者意见的各种益处,包括获得人文视角的价值,以及一些挑战,包括资源需求和所获得信息的质量。我们发现商业健康计划在制定药物覆盖政策时明显缺乏患者和成员的参与。调查受访者和访谈对象确定了在专科药物覆盖政策中考虑患者和计划成员的价值观和偏好的益处,但也报告了这样做的一些重要挑战。国家药物理事会为这项研究提供了资金。