SCIENCE@home

Beauty and the Beast

G. Cutter,Guoqiao Wang

Published 1994 in The Teddy Bear Chronicles

ABSTRACT

I n this issue of Neurology Clinical Practice, Young et al. discuss 5 things to consider in reading a cost-effectiveness or decision analysis study. Such studies are necessary as the medical profession wrestles with caring for patients and paying for that care. The approaches discussed by Young et al. are important to digest as this type of study will be more prevalent as pressures mount in all aspects of clinical and comprehensive care. Young et al. point out the need to interpret the models and understand the meaning of the data presented. Their article provides an excellent summary of the tools and approaches widely used by policymakers and researchers, bringing some systematic evaluation to the pressures of cost vs the benefits of therapy. Armed with the materials from the Young et al. article, readers should also be cognizant of limitations that can result from mathematical subtleties hiding within these methods. Knowing the methods and terminology can be as important as reading the literature. There are many methods used to manage and assess risk and costs. Risk-sharing schemes are methods to limit expenditures relative to the medical gain that can come from a therapy or an intervention. These so-called schemes inform payer’s decisions about coverage and denial of therapies and technologies, and usually are built around cost-effectiveness analysis. While they are more widely used in the European Union in a formal process, clinicians everywhere will face these issues when trying to obtain payment for new therapies. Thus, clinicians should understand at some level the basis of the decision-making by the payers. Understanding specifically—or even generally—why a payer has taken a particular action can greatly help to facilitate appeals and discussions. As an example, consider a risk-sharing scheme that was developed in the United Kingdom for treating multiple sclerosis (MS). An article commenting on this risk-sharing scheme from a few years ago focused on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting MS and offered the following conclusions:

PUBLICATION RECORD

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CLAIMS

  • No claims are published for this paper.

CONCEPTS

  • No concepts are published for this paper.

REFERENCES

  • No references are available for this paper.

Showing 0-0 of 0 references · Page 1 of 1

CITED BY

Showing 1-100 of 221 citing papers · Page 1 of 3

123
Next