Peters W P, Rogers M C
Duke University Bone Marrow Transplant Program, Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Durham, NC 27710.
N Engl J Med. 1994 Feb 17;330(7):473-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199402173300707.
The proper evaluation of new forms of technology depends on the results of clinical trials. However, the treatment of patients in grant-sponsored clinical trials of cancer therapy usually requires that the proposed treatment be approved in advance by an insurance carrier in a process called predetermination.
We examined the consistency of predetermination decisions by insurance companies for 533 patients enrolled in grant-supported clinical trials of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) for breast cancer from 1989 through 1992. These decisions about coverage were compared with peer-reviewed decision making according to the study protocol and with clinical outcomes.
Requests for insurance coverage for ABMT were approved in 77 percent of the cases. Of these patients, 23 percent did not undergo bone marrow transplantation for protocol-based or medical reasons. Insurance coverage for ABMT was denied in response to the other requests, primarily because the therapy was considered experimental; of these patients, 51 percent eventually underwent bone marrow transplantation despite the denial of insurance. In some instances, the patient had to hire an attorney to gain coverage. The frequency of approval was not influenced by the pretreatment clinical characteristics of the patients, the design or phase of the study, the year in which the predetermination request was made, or the response to induction therapy. There was substantial inconsistency in the frequency of approval of coverage both among insurers and between decisions made by some individual insurers, even for patients in the same study protocol.
The predetermination process as applied to patients receiving care in clinical research trials of cancer therapy was arbitrary and capricious. Although most of the patients eventually received financial coverage for entry into clinical trials, the process of predetermination by insurers did not correlate with protocol-based medical decision making, and it was a barrier to obtaining treatment.
对新技术形式的恰当评估取决于临床试验结果。然而,在由资助的癌症治疗临床试验中对患者进行治疗,通常要求在一个称为预先判定的过程中,拟议的治疗方法事先得到保险公司的批准。
我们研究了1989年至1992年期间参加资助的乳腺癌高剂量化疗和自体骨髓移植(ABMT)临床试验的533例患者的保险公司预先判定决定的一致性。将这些关于承保范围的决定与根据研究方案进行的同行评审决策以及临床结果进行比较。
ABMT的保险覆盖申请在77%的病例中获得批准。在这些患者中,23%因基于方案或医疗原因未进行骨髓移植。对其他申请,ABMT的保险覆盖被拒绝,主要是因为该治疗被认为是试验性的;在这些患者中,51%尽管保险申请被拒,最终还是进行了骨髓移植。在某些情况下,患者不得不聘请律师以获得保险覆盖。批准频率不受患者治疗前临床特征、研究设计或阶段、提出预先判定申请的年份或诱导治疗反应的影响。即使对于同一研究方案中的患者,保险公司之间以及一些个别保险公司做出的决定之间,保险覆盖批准频率也存在很大不一致。
应用于癌症治疗临床研究试验中接受治疗患者的预先判定过程是任意和多变的。尽管大多数患者最终获得了参加临床试验的经济覆盖,但保险公司的预先判定过程与基于方案的医疗决策无关,并且是获得治疗的一个障碍。