Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
A Pilot Process for Setting
National Assessment Priorities
The Council on Health Care Technology and its pnonty-seuing group
opted for a two-stage strategy to address its congressional mandate to set
priorities for health care technology assessment. Although the group
recognized the need for a national pnonty-setting process for the assess-
ment of medical practice, it also became acutely aware of Be lack of
widely accepted pnonty-setting methodologies and adequate primely
data to meet this need. Recognizing these methodologic difficulties, the
council undertook this pilot effort to set a framework for national pnonty-
setting, outline national pnonty-setting cntena, and use a consensus
process to identify a first-cut list of priority areas for the assessment of
clinical conditions and medical technologies. An expanded effort pro-
posed by the council would build on what was reamed from the pilot
work, available data, and funkier methodolog~c development. This report
is the record of me first, pilot effom
ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL APPROACH
The national approach for setting assessment priorities proposed here
is composed of Tree key elements:
I. Explicit and well-accepted criteria for priority-sefflng that are am
plicable at the national level.
2. A conceptual framework that accommodates both clinical condi-
tions and medical technologies as assessment pnonties.
15
OCR for page 16
16
NATIONAL ASSESSME=PR]ORTTlES
3. An accountable process for pnonty-setting that involves a broad
range of assessment interests.
Two premises underline these he elements. First, a national mecha-
n~;rn to set priorities for the evaluation of medical practice must account
for the vaned needs and perspectives of different pardes involved in
heath care. This pilot effort entailed broad-based involvement on Me part
of the organizations providing data about potential priority areas and the
members of We group who selected from among these areas. Those
involved were representatives of health care sectors having different types
of assessment needs. Thus, the council believes that the list of priorities
identified in this pilot study represents assessment areas that are of na-
tional ~mporunce. Even so, such a list of general assessment priorates
might be useful in meeting the needs and pnonty-sefflng cr~tena of
patients, providers, researchers, payers, and regulators. Certainly'
individual organizations win continue to set their own pr~onties based on
their roles in health care delivery.
Second, medical technologies and practices should be considered in
their clinical context and in comparison with over clinical management
altematives. Early in its deliberations, the council decided to expand its
charge fimm identifying only priority heath care technologies to deter-
mung Be coccal coalitions and medical problems Cat should also be
taken into account. In this pilot study, therefore, the council used both a
clinical condition approach and a technology approach to set pr~onties.
This combined clinical condition/technology framework considers tech-
nolog~es and other medical practices in their clinical context. It considers
me use, or non-use, of technologies for He management of clinical condi-
dons that may affect different patient populations.
NATIONALLY APPLICABLE PRIORITY-SETTING CRITERIA
The following pnon~-se~ng criteria identified by the Council on
Health Care Technology are based upon important factors commonly
recognized by the multiple heath sectors represented In me council,
including academia' government, health care provided, health care manu-
facture~, and payers. The criteria were used to choose He 20 assessment
areas identified in this pilot report and to facilitate He comparison of the
pnonty-serdng criteria used by some of Be organizations providing infor-
madon for this pilot study (see Appendix By. The use of these prionty-
setting criteria assumes Hat a well-conducted assessment of a phoney
clinical condition or medical technology could be used to unprove medi-
cal practice and patient quality of life.
OCR for page 17
A PILOT PROCESS
17
The primal and secondary criteria provide means of comparing candi-
date assessment areas in terms of the types of impact that may result from
an tnvesOnent in evaluating that area. For the purposes of this study,
primary criteria account for important and readily quantifiable character-
istics of national pnor~ties. Secondary criteria account for other factors
that should be consider in pnonty-sett~ng decisions, but that may be
more difficult to quantify because of their more general or subjective
nature.
Together, these enters represent a spectrum of factors and issues that
are important to decision-makers in setting pnonties. The order in which
the criteria are listed does not imply that one criterion is more important
than another, or mat aD of the criteria shown should be given equal weight
in setting pnonties. The 20 priority assessment areas chosen in this pilot
study fulfill all or most of the primary criteria and one or more of the
secondary cntena.
Primary Criteria
Potential (for an Assessment) to Improve Individual Patient Outcome
An improved patient outcome refers to the health benefit or reduction of
health risk for Me individual patient. Implementation of me findings of an
assessment may lead to changes in the use of technologies for managing
clinical conditions that can improve patient outcomes. Patient Outcomes
resulting from We use of different technologies (or Me use of no technol-
ogy) may be measured by the risks to Me patient (e.g., mortality, morbid-
ity, complications, or side effects), the improvement of health status' and
Me patient's satisfaction with the intervention (e.g., his or her perception
of improved emotional and physical weB-being). The relevance of differ-
ent patient outcomes may vary according to Me patient's clinical condi-
lion, age, sex, and cultural and socioeconomic background. The percep-
tion of what constitutes an improved patient outcome may be different for
patients, providers, payers, health care product makers, or policymakers.
Potential to Affect a Large Patient Population
The potential impact of an assessment may be enhanced if the prevalence
of Me clinical condition or the frequency of use of the technology is high.
Measures of frequency provide a factor for scaling possible benefits from
me standpoint of Me individual patient (e.g., the potential to improve Me
outcome for Me individual patient and to reduce the cost per patient) ~
OCR for page 18
18
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES
that of an aggregate patient population. Thus, an inexpensive procedure
might not be considered important in the individual case, but might be a
high priority in the aggregate if it is a widely used procedure with an un-
determined health benefit.
Potential to Reduce Unit or Aggregate Cost
The results of a high-priority assessment may lead to changes in medical
practice that may reduce costs or increase savings while achieving an
equivalent or improved effect on patient outcomes. Unit cost may be
estimated by the average expenditure of resources (capital, manpower,
maintenance, etc.) associated with the use of technologies for one clinical
condition for one patient for a specified penod of care. A period of care
may be defined as a single procedure, a sequence of interventions for an
acute clinical episode, or the lifetime treatment of a chronic disease.
Aggregate cost may be estimated by the product of unit cost and preva-
lence in the case of a clinical condition, and by the product of unit cost and
frequency of use in the case of a technology. The unit or aggregate cost
may include, but not be limited to, expenditures ~ncuned by patients,
providers, or payers.
Potential to Reduce Unexplained Variat~ons in Medical Practice
Unexplained variations refer to differences in the use of technologies for
a clinical condition, or the associated patient outcomes, Hat cannot be
explained by differences in identifiable patient characteristics such as
disease seventy or sociodemographic factors. The results of an assess-
ment may lead to changes in medical practice that would reduce unex-
pla~ned variations in the use of drugs, devices, or procedures. Deviations
from appropriate utilization may lead to undesirable consequences such
as high costs from the overuse of ineffective technologies or false savings
from the underuse of effective technologies. Unexplained van ations In
practice patterns and patient outcomes may be detected along a number of
dimensions, such as geographical region, clinical practice setting (e.g.,
inpatient versus outpatient), or type of heath care provider.
Secondary Criteria
Potential to Address Social and Ethical Implications
The introduction of some technologies may be associated with concerns
about social and ethical values; examples are those technologies used to
prolong life in an incurable state or alter reproductive patterns. The
OCR for page 19
A PILOT PROCESS
19
attitudes of the patient, provider, or society toward such technologies may
be better understood and potentially changed as a result of an assessment.
Fur~ennore, some technologies may have broad ~mplicadons for eco-
nomic or legal systems, such as me potential impact Cat a health care
technology might have on the productivity of the work force or on makers
of provider liability. Issues such as equity of access and potential radon-
ing of services Even limited resources should also be considered.
Potential to Advance Medical Knowledge
An assessment may be of high priority if it could si—ficandy improve
knowledge about a clinical condition or a particular technology's effec-
tiveness in preventing' diagnosing, or treating a conical condition. This
criterion would likely apply to clinical conditions for which the scientific
base is limited or for which few or no technologies exist. Similarly, new
and emerging technologies may produce a "bmalcthrough" in current
medical Linking and practice and have a greater potential to advance
medical knowledge. The potential benefit of emerging ~rugs' devices, or
procedures that are not yet being used for a large number of patients may
be enhanced as a result of an assessment
Potent~al to Affect Policy Decisions
Well-conducted assessments of the medical practices in question might
elucidate policy options for me avocation of national resources, He for-
mulabon of regulatory and reimbursement policies, and me management
of health benefit programs. Evaluations of Be relative effectiveness of
altemative technologies may provide Me scientific justification for prac-
tice guidelines for specific coca conditions or technologies. In addi-
tion, assessments may be conducted to respond in a timely fashion
public demand for the resolution of a controversial issue.
Potential to Enhance the Natzor~ Capacity for Assessment
An enhanced capacity refers to better use and furler development of me
nation's information, methodologic, economic, and human resources avail-
able for medical practice and technology assessment. An assessment may
help train researched or serge as a mode} to improve mesons. Evalu-
ations of specific topics may ser`,e as prototypes for certain types of
analyses and could lead to advances In methodology.
OCR for page 20
20
NATIONAL ASSESSAfENTPRlORmES
Patters to Be Reads Conducted
The ability to conduct an assessment is dependent on the adequacy of
available data, analytical methods, and resources needed for the appropn-
ate analyses and formulation of recommendations. Perceived infeasibility
should not prevent better methods from being developed and resources
from being commit to assessments of the highest-pnon~ areas. How-
ever, if two topics have the same potential impact by aU the other cntena'
the potential to be readily conducted may determine which topic is of
greatest pnonty.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRIORITIES
To evaluate medical technologies and practices, the clinical conditions
for which these are used and the needs and characteristics of the patient
population of interest should be taken into account. Assessment concerns
may also be raised about particular technologies or groups of technolo-
g~es. Accordingly, in setting priorities among potential assessment top-
ics, Be pnonty-setting group used both a clinical condition approach and
a technology approach. While the council favors the clinical condition
approach to evaluating medical practice, it recognizes that a single ap-
proach should not dominate and that a national process for setting pnon-
ties must accommodate the needs of those oriented to different approaches.
The conceptual framework for priorities accommodating clinical con-
ditions and technologies was developed after reviewing the approaches
used by a selection of different types of health care organizations (see
Appendix C). This unifying framework was used to compile the initial,
broad list of clinical conditions and technologies considered in this study.
Appendix A shows how the potential assessment topics suggested by the
source organizations and by the members of the pnonty-seuing group
were considered as altemative technologies and practices, or combina-
tions of these, Cat may be used for the prevention, screening, diagnosis,
or treatment of particular clinical conditions.
The Clinical Condition Approach
The clinical condition approach to identifying potential assessment
topics focuses on the patient's clinical condition for which different tech-
nolog~cal altematives exist. The term clinical condition denotes a set of
identifiable clinical signs and symptoms affecting the health status of an
OCR for page 21
A PILOT PROCESS
21
individual.! Rather than emphasizing specific attributes of a single tech-
nology, the clinical condition approach is concerned with the differences
in patient outcomes2 that may be related to the use of altemative technolo-
g~es, different combinations or sequences of technologies, or no technol-
ogy for a coca condition.
The clinical condition approach to pnonty-setting is compatible with
the expanding interest in "patient outcomes" and "effectiveness research"
in evaluating medical practices. These evaluations compare the relative
effectiveness of altemative technologies to prevent, diagnose, or treat a
clinical condition in actual everyday practice In contrast to measures of
their efficacy in controlBed clinical research settings. The emphasis may
be on widely used procedures and practices and on questions of the most
appropriate treatment for a given set of symptoms in the individual
patient. An this context, measures of relative effectiveness reflect bow the
decisions that clinicians must make in the care of patients and the differ-
ent values or utilities individual patients may have for the outcomes
associated with alternative interventions.
Dunng its early deliberations, the evaluation panel of the Council of
Health Care Technology determined mat the clinical condition approach
was more appropriate than a focus on a particular device, drug, or proce-
dure (Institute of Medicine, 1987a). The coca condition approach re-
fleets more appropnately the context within which alternative drugs,
devices, or procedures (or no technologies) are used to treat patients in the
everyday practice of medicine. The clinical condition approach to identi-
fying assessment priorities was used primarily by, but not Innited to, the
individual clinicians and physician organizations contacted in this pilot
study (see Appendix C). In proposing a national Effectiveness Initiative
the Health Care Financing Administration (HC:E;A), which administers
the Medicare program and the federal portion of the Medicaid program,
chose the conical condition approach, as demonstrated by its aforemen-
~ The health status of an individual may be assessed in teens of the traditional anatomic
aM physiologic measures of disease, as well as in ter ns of the impairments in normal
functional, emotional, and mental condition (Lohr and Mock, 1989~. The use of the tenn
clinical condition emphasizes the importance of considering other dimensions of health
status, beyond the more traditional clinical measures of disease, in evaluating medical
technologies and practices and their relationship to patient outcomes.
2 Patient outcomes are defined as "the range of results Mat proceed from (or are
presumed to be associated with) the provision of health care services." Lee concept of
patient outcomes includes physiologic, functional, emotional mental, and social dimen-
sions of health (Lohr, 1988~.
OCR for page 22
22
NATIONAL AS.9F-~;M~PHORm~
tioned request to the Institute of Medicine for advice on priority cI'n~cal
conditions Destitute of Medicine, 1989~.3
The Technology Approach
Another approach to identifying assessment priorities concerns par-
ticular medical technologies. Medical technologies are me drugs, devices,
procedures, support systems, arid organizational systems used in health
care.4 This broad definition of medical technologies includes Al medical
practices and processes of care. For example, interventions such as a
routine physical exam, a diagnostic laboratory test, or laser surgery are
types of procedures; and administrative technologies such as infonnation
systems and payment mechanisms are types of support and organizations
systems. A technology may be in an emerging, new, established, or
obsoletes stage of development, diffusion, or acceptance.
The focus of many medical technology assessment activities is consis-
tent with a technology approach. Such assessments are driven by Me need
to answer questions about the properties of specific technologies, such as
safety, efficacy, indications for use, and cost, as wed as social, economic,
and ethical consequences, whether intended or unintended (Institute of
Medicine, 198Sa). The focus may be on single and relatively expensive
new, high technologies such as procedures or devices.
The technology approach to identify priorities was used by some of the
groups involved in the payment or purchasing of health care services that
provided background information for this project (see Appendix C). For
example, private third-party payers identified assessment needs in terms
Of the CPT46 procedure codes used in insurance claims (Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, 1989b; Metropolitan Life Insurance Program,
1989~. Similarly, organizations representing the interests of hospitals
were concerned with technologies, such as devices or equipment-embod-
ied procedures, that are important in providing state-of-the-art medical
services (Amencan Hospital Association, 1989; ECRI, 198S,1989e). Thus,
a technology approach may better represent the assessment needs of some
organizations, such as payers or institutional providers of care, faced win
decisions about the cost and reimbursement of specific new technologies.
3 See footnote 6 in chapter 1.
~ The definitions for medical technologies, originated by Me congressional Office of
Technology Assessment (1978), were expanded by Me Institute of Medicine Committee on
Assessing Medical Technologies (Institute of Medicine, 1985a). In this report the terms
are used as defined in the Glossary.
5 The stages of diffusion of a medical technology are defined in the Gloss~y.
6 Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPI~4) (American
Medical Association, 1987~.
OCR for page 23
A PILOT PROCESS
Integrating the Clinical Condition and Technology Approaches
23
Medical technologies may be used for the prevention, screening, ~iag-
nosis, and treatments of clinical conditions. The clinical condition ap-
proach for setting priories emphasizes the clinics context within which
altemative technological interventions should be assessed. The technol-
ogy approach may be used Go identify He alternative technologies that
apply to a particular stage of a clinical condition. For example, lithotnpsy
is a treatment technology used to destroy body stones. Rather than con-
sidenng it alone as a specific technology, lithotnpsy can be compared
with other treatment technologies, such as surgical removal and dissolu-
tion by chemical means, to form a group of technological alternatives for
the treatment of the clinical conditions of gallstones or kidney stones.
The technology approach may also be used to identify cross-cutting
technologies that apply to a large number of conditions at different stages.
For instance, imaging technologies such as computed tomography, mag-
netic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography are diagnos-
tic technologies that may be used to detect the anatomic abnom~alides
associated with many cI=cal conditions, such as many types of cancer
and neurolog~c injuries. Because groups of cross-cueing technologies
may raise common assessment issues such as We appropriateness and
sequencing of multiple testing win different diagnostic imaging modali-
ties a technology approach may be more appropriate for identifying
them as assessment priorities. However, such technologies must be as-
sessed with respect to a particular patient outcome or clinical indication
that may serve as a prototype for He issues raised by He group of
technologies.
In identifying the set of 20 assessment priorities discussed in Chapter 3,
this pilot study integrated the clinical condition and the technology am
preaches for setting pr~onties. For high-pr~or~ty clinical conditions, the
adtemative technologies Hat may be used for prevention, screening, diag-
nosis, and treannent were considered. For high-pnonty, cross cueing
technologies the range of alternative preventive, screening, diagnostic, or
annent indications was taken into account These interrelated am
preaches can be used to represent the concerns of those oriented to a
technology approach, as well as the concerns of those oriented to a
clinical condition approach.
7 These types of intervention are defined in the Gloss~y.
OCR for page 24
24
METHOD OF THIS PILOT STUDY
Overview
NATIONAL A~SESSMENTPRlORmES
The council and its pnonty-setting group treated this pilot effort as an
experiment in developing a prionty-setting process involving a broad
range of assessment interests. Based on He preliminary experiences of
He council's evaluation pane} win modeling and consensus approaches
to pr~onty-setting, He group realized that the development of a formal
pnonty-sefflng metrology Hat would integrate the best of these am
preaches and use the necessary primary data was not possible within the
scope of time and resources available for this pilot effort.
The pnor~ty-seuing group decided to move forward win a two-round
modified Delphi process to choose a first set of priorities for further study
from a larger list of potential topics. The two-round component of this
process was used to generate a broad, initial list of potential topics.
Candidate topics listed in Appendix A were added to the list in two
iterations, based on the background information provided by diverse
organizations and the expertise of He members of He group. By means of
a modified Delphi homework exercise, the pnor~ty-sefflng group chose
from this initial list a narrower field of potential topics to be consider
dunug a later meeting of the group. The homework exercise was used to
ensure the most efficient use of meeting time by limiting the number of
topics to be consider and discussed.
In summary, He 20 recommended assessment priorities discussed in
Chapter 3 were chosen by the pr~onty-sefflng group from the composite
list of 496 topics listed in Appendix A through a two-round modified
Delphi process and a meeting of me full group.
Round ~ of the Modified Delphi Process
The goal of Round ~ was to develop a broad list of potential assessment
topics. Staff compiled this composite list after consulting individuals andJ
or publications from the 14 organ~zabons descnbed in Appendix C. Each
potential topic was considered sequentially and Men reclassified using a
clinical condition or a technology approach. When a technology was
readily identifiable as an altemative monadic used for the preven~don,
screening, diagnosis, or treaunent of a specific coca condition, it was
listed under Aim clinical condition. Men a technology applied to mul-
dple clinical conditions, it was listed as a cross-cutting technology.
Members of the pnonty-setting group reviewed this composite list and
OCR for page 25
A PILOT PROCESS
25
added topics Rat they thought should be considered. Appendix A dis-
plays how Me 496 potential topics on the initial list were reduced to 73
groups of clinical conditions and associated technologies (see Table AM
and 36 groups of other technologies (see Table A.2) using the clinical
condition/technology framework. This composite list was reconsidered
by the group during Round IT of the modified Delphi process.
Round ~ of the Modified Delphi Process
During Round IT the group generated a preliminary list of assessment
priorities by Me following process. Staff sent to committee members a
questionnaire asking them to list their top 10 priorities from the topics in
Appendix A. Group members were asked to choose cI~rucal conditions or
technologies and to justify each of their 10 choices in tempts of the
pnonty-sethng criteria listed in this chapter. Staff analyzed Me results of
this homework exercise in terms of Me frequency and types of topics se-
lected, and the distribution of the pnonty-setting criteria used to justify
each chosen topic was noted. These results were presented to the group
dunng its meeting, together with a tabulation of an the numencal data on
prevalence, cost, etc., provided by Me source orgaruzabons as described
in Appendix C.
The Priority-Setting Group's Meeting
Dunug its meeting on May ~ I, 1989, at the National Academy of Sci-
ences in Washington, D.C., the pnonty-setting group reconsidered me
preliminary list of priorities they had chosen through the modified Delphi
exercise. The group went though several rounds of discussion of Me
proposed list of national assessment priorities In relation to the pr~ority-
seuing criteria defined. At each stage, group members could move to add
or delete topics from the list.
After several rounds of elim~nadon based on voting and mnking exer-
cises, Me group concluded that the lack of readily accessible unfond data
to justify rankings of all the candidates by each of the criteria meant that a
methodologically sound quantitative tanking would not be possible for
this pilot effort. Throughout its deliberations, the priority-setting group,
however, felt that it was important to limit the final list to a manageable
number of assessment areas. After considering several rar~ing options
for the priorities, the group decided on Me set of 20 priority assessment
areas described in Chapter 3. The group determined that, because all
OCR for page 26
26
NATIONAL ASSESSMENTPRIORmES
areas were nationally important and that data for them were not consis-
tently available, it would not be possible to assign atop substantiate rar~c-
ings among these 20 priority assessment areas.
Activities Following the Priority-Setting Meeting
In consultation with the prior~ty-setting group, the surf drafted the
report, including the descriptions of Me 20 assessment areas chosen by the
group. Staff incorporated information provided by the source orgaIiiza-
tions and from current literature into these descnphons, which were
arranged according to the applicable critena. Fur~ennore, selected ex-
perts in the chosen priority areas reviewed the individual descriptions of
each of the 20 priority assessment areas identified. The draft report was
reviewed and approved by the prionty-setting group, the Council on
Heath Care Technology, and external peer reviewers according to the
standard procedures of the National Academy of Sciences.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
clinical conditions
