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 7
Sponsorship and Role of Consensus
Development Programs within
National Health Care Systems
Itzhak Jacoby
In 1977, under the leadership of Donald Fredrickson, the U.S.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) began sponsoring consensus
development conferences. This new program was NIH's innovative
response to the widely perceived need for assessment of the safety
and efficacy of technologies. In the U.S. Congress and elsewhere,
debates were raging about health technology assessment in general
and the role of the federal government in particular, including the
impact of NTH's research effort on clinical practice. Senator Ed-
ward Kennedy asked in a 1976 speech:
Shouldn't some institution in our society have an ongoing function of reviewing not
just new knowledge that might be transferred into clinical practice but also old
knowledge that underpins current procedures involving risks, high costs, or simply
great inconvenience to millions of patients in order to determine what needs to be
changed, updated, or further researched? (Perry, 1988~.
Further impetus for developing the program came from rapidly
escalating health care costs, which were linked by the public and
policymakers to the uncontrolled diffusion of expensive, but not
necessarily cost-effective, technologies. The program also fulfilled
Dr. Frederickson's desire for NTH to bolster information transfer at
the interface between biomedical science and clinical practice.
With more than 75 consensus conferences to its credit, the NIH
program has served as a mode} for the United States and other coun-
tries in the development of health technology assessment. Similar
7
OCR for page 8
8
CONSENSUS DE:VELOPMENT
programs that have emerged in several European countries and Can-
ada differ markedly from the NIH model in their goals, scope of
consideration, and mode of disseminating results. This divergence
has resulted from differences among the countries' health care deliv-
ery systems and the nature of the organizations that sponsor the
conferences. These differences in the context of technology assess-
ment play a critical role in determining the scope, format, and im-
pact of each country consensus development program.
The consensus development process is designed for conflict reso-
lution. It borrows from several other conflict resolution modes: the
judicial process, collegiate peer review, democratic debate, and col-
lective bargaining. As pointed out by Kosecoff et al. (1987), for the
process to have impact and meaning, topics must involve clinical
practice-related controversies and a gap between knowledge and
practice. The process has its greatest effect in the resolution of
controversies about technologies or issues on the cutting edge of
medical practice, and therefore, it should be reserved for this pur-
pose.
Broad participation of multiple factions is necessary in sponsor-
ing, planning, and implementing the conferences in order to increase
the likelihood of proper selection of topics, encourage development
of conclusions applicable to practice decisions and policy-making,
and produce a significant impact on health care delivery. Partici-
pants should include the biomedical research community, those in
medical practice, payer organizations, and organizations concerned
with the administration and delivery of services. To meet the needs
of these factions, consensus conferences should aim to resolve con-
flicts about safety, efficacy, cost and cost-effectiveness, indications
and contraindications, societal acceptance, and other ethical issues.
Any compromise in this agenda, especially given the urgent need for
consensus results and the high cost of these conferences, can only be
considered a missed opportunity. The context within which health
technology assessment- and consensus development in particular-
takes place in each country has determined the extent to which this
ideal is realized.
THE U.S. EXPERIENCE IN CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
The focus of the NIH Consensus Development Program is nar-
rowly defined, in line with the agency's mission as a biomedical
OCR for page 9
SPONSORSHIP AND ROLE
9
research institution. The program limits assessment to issues of
safety and efficacy, excluding social, economic, and ethical consid-
erations. Topics are proposed by one of NIH's many component
institutes when sufficient data are available to conduct such an as-
sessment and when some element of controversy exists. Participants
in the process are broadly recognized leaders in their respective
fields. Technical and research experts present information to an
appropriate pane} of physician specialists, informed public represen-
tatives, and others with specialized expertise. This panel reviews
the scientific data presented to develop the consensus statement.
Representatives of physician specialty groups, third-party payers, or
health administrators are not usually participants in the planning or
execution of the conference.
From the beginning, the NIH process was supposed to seek a
"technical consensus" on the clinical significance of new findings,
the adequacy of validation for efficacy and safety, and the need for
further research. NIH recognized that further consensus develop-
ment on the broader health care delivery issues should complement
its technical consensus before a particular clinical modality is rec-
ommended for adoption. This second process was then referred to
as interface consensus and was to deal not only with safety and
efficacy, but also with cost; cost-effectiveness; and legal, ethical,
and other societal issues (Perry, 1988~.
To provide this broader assessment, the U.S. Congress established
the National Center for Health Care Technology (NCHCT). The
center's responsibilities included consensus development on the full
range of clinical practice-related issues. The one conference that the
center sponsored as a follow-up to the NIH consensus conference on
coronary artery bypass surgery complemented the NTH conclusions
with considerations of broad societal issues. The NCHCT succumbed
to budgetary and political pressures in 1981 after only two years of
operation. While it existed, the NIH added the word technical to the
title of its consensus development program to distinguish NTH's re-
sponsibilities from those of the center. Although the word technical
has since been dropped, NIH-sponsored consensus conferences still
conform to the restricted model.
The broad goal of the NIH program is to facilitate the appropriate
and timely application of biomedical research findings to clinical
practice. In evaluating the extent to which the program has attained
that goal, analysis both of conferences that have produced an impact
OCR for page 10
10
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
and those that have not point to the advantages of broad sponsor-
ship. For the most part, NIH relies upon topic selection criteria
concerning the adequacy of the evidence for resolving controversies
and the thoroughness with which the clinical implications of scien-
tific or technologic developments have been explored and discussed
in the literature. Although these criteria are reasonable in the con-
text of scientific peer review, they do not address the needs of the
intended recipients of technology transfer: physicians, hospitals,
and other providers of health care, as well as their patients. To
increase the impact of consensus development conference results,
those who choose topics should systematically consider the current
state of practice along with the current state of science in determin-
ing the potential usefulness of a conference.
The NTH consensus development conference on the treatment of
primary breast cancer illustrated the importance of considering the
state of practice when planning a conference. This conference failed
to produce a change in practice because there was widespread pre-
conference conformity- with the major consensus recommendation
(Kanouse et al., 1989~.
An inability to effect change may also result from the panel's
avoidance of the areas of greatest controversy in generating recom-
mendations. The U.S. conference on coronary artery bypass surgery
is a case in point. In the consensus statement from that conference,
the pane} confined its recommendations to the relatively clear cases
at the extremes, where there was less controversy, instead of provid-
ing unequivocal recommendations regarding the most common clini-
cal scenarios leading to bypass surgery, where clinicians might wel-
come some assistance in making choices (Kanouse et al., 19891. In
general, sole custodianship of any process encourages a natural ten-
dency for a group to avoid controversy and to safely promote the
view of the sponsor, which, in this case, was the biomedical re-
search community. Greater involvement of physician specialty so-
cieties and payer organizations, including health insurance groups
and agencies such as the Health Care Financing Administration that
reimburse providers and beneficiaries with government funds, might
help to produce the most urgently needed consensus development
information.
When participation in NTH consensus development conferences
extends beyond the biomedical research community, the benefits are
clear. A recent evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Pro-
/
OCR for page 11
SPONSORSHIP AND ROW
11
gram singled out the 1980 conference on cesarean childbirth as a
success in both information transfer and practice impact. Since both
the obstetrical community and the lay public viewed sharply rising
cesarean section rates with alarm, NIH's sponsorship of this confer-
ence was spurred by a suggestion from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The conference thereby capital-
ized on the existing physician awareness and concern that formed a
basis for motivating change in hospital policies and physician prac-
tices. The conference was oriented to this well-defined interest and
performed a unique service in summarizing the accumulated knowI-
edge on this topic, pointing out the practice implications of this
information, and developing clear recommendations about changing
the management of certain deliveries. All of these activities had
never before occurred with the clinician as the intended audience.
Finally, NIH arranged for publication of the consensus statement in
two major obstetrical journals, and the American College of Obste-
tr~cians and Gynecologists took an active interest in helping to dis-
seminate the findings (Kanouse et al., 19891.
Given these elements—a scientifically based and clinically rele-
vant message delivered for the first time to a receptive audience that
recognized the need for change it is perhaps not surprising that the
conference on cesarean sections was especially successful in chang-
ing physicians' and hospitals' practices (Kanouse et al., 19891. Such
a combination of favorable conditions may be the exception rawer
than the rule for consensus development topics. The likelihood of
identifying motivation for change in a controversial area may be
enhanced by seeking out the active participation of the potential
users of consensus statements.
An analysis of the topics selected for the NTH Consensus Devel-
opment Program over the last eight years would suggest a shift away
from controversial subjects accompanied by the production of con-
clusions that are not only less controversial but also more general
and less helpful to the practicing health care professional commu-
nity or patients. Two exceptions, in addition to the one on cesarean
sections, are the conferences on liver transplantation and the use of
ultrasound in prenatal care. In both cases, outside pressure was
brought to bear on NIH to hold the conferences.
To achieve the greatest impact with consensus development con-
ferences in the United States, NIH should contribute, along with
other participants from the broader health care community, to a con-
OCR for page 12
12
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
sensus process administered by an organization with a much broader
mission. Topics should be selected that represent a significant chal-
lenge from the perspective of clinicians and the public at large. The
influence, resources, and insight of the biomedical research commu-
nity, combined with those of physician specialty societies, third-
party payers, and individuals involved in health care policy and
administration, would constitute a formidable force for change in
health care.
One additional change in the current procedure should also be
considered. Occasionally, a consensus development pane} has pro-
duced a statement with assertions that are not supported by evidence
or a statement that does not adequately answer one or more of the
questions posed. It should be routine for all consensus statements to
be reviewed by an independent group, as are papers in peer-reviewed
journals and reports from the National Academy of Sciences. This
peer review should result in the production of more valid statements.
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE
THE UNITED STATES
As the NIH Consensus Development Program in the United States
matured, international interest in the process began to emerge. In
late 1981, Sweden's consensus development program was established.
The program was the result of numerous discussions and visits by
representatives of the Swedish Medical Research Council, a sister
agency of NIH, and the Swedish Planning and Rationalization Insti-
tute for the Health and Social Services (Spri), which is responsible
for health planning in Sweden. Although a great deal of discussion
has occurred concerning the similarities between the U.S. and Swed-
ish programs, the cosponsorship of the Swedish program by a health
planning organization has received little attention. Spri's orientation
has had a distinctive impact on the consensus development program's
activities. This arrangement was particularly important considering
the decentralization of the national health service delivery system in
Sweden, where most decisions are made by regional councils.
The first Swedish consensus development conference addressed
total hipjoint replacement. It followed a conference on the same
topic in the United States. The Swedish conference, in line with the
sponsors' interests, added a question on the cost implications of the
procedure to questions shared with the U.S. conference. Other top-
OCR for page 13
SPONSORSHIP AND ROLE
13
ice have been selected primarily on the basis of their importance to
health service delivery and the practice of medicine, in addition to
the willingness of the scientific community to deal with the issue.
An examination of the impact of the Swedish conference on hip-
joint replacement indicated an increase in the number of procedures
immediately following the conference (Calitorp, 1988~.
In the United Kingdom, the consensus development program be-
gan in 1984. Unlike other programs, this endeavor stemmed not
from legislative or governmental impetus but from individual inter-
est and belief in the process. The program found a base in The
King's Fund Centre for Service Development, an academic and phil-
anthropic institution prominent in the British medical community for
training health service managers. The organizers of the consensus
development program nevertheless sought the participation of gov-
ernment agencies responsible for the National Health Service and
participation of physicians' groups. These organizations, however,
while supporting the purpose of the program, chose to participate as
observers and adopt a "wait and see" attitude.
After lengthy negotiations, the first topic chosen was coronary
artery bypass grafting. At the time, only slightly more than 10
procedures per 100,000 population were performed in the United
Kingdom, as opposed to more than 80 procedures per 100,000 popu-
ilul1 ;11 flu; Ullii`;U attires and approximately 4U per 100,000 in
other European countries. Since most health services utilization
experts agreed that the European rate was appropriate, it was not
surprising that the consensus process recommended raising the rate
for the United Kingdom. In recognition of Britain's limited health
care resources, the consensus statement provided criteria for clini-
cians to use in the selection of patients who could benefit most from
the medical process for receipt of treatment. Compared with the
U.S. conference on this topic in 1981, the King's Fund conference
produced very detailed clinical advice as to indications and contrain-
dications for the coronary artery bypass procedure.
In addition, as discussed in a detailed comparison of the U.K. and
U.S. conferences on bypass surgery (Stocking, 1985), the questions
considered by the panel went beyond scientific issues to encompass
the costs and implications of increased use of coronary artery bypass
grafting on the British National Health Service. In line with these
interests, and especially because of the capped budget of the service,
the U.K. pane} consisted of people who were not experts on the
1~_ -_ I_ IT_: Cat ~ _ _ · . ~ ~~
OCR for page 14
4
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
procedure; half of the panel members were not clinicians. Subse-
quent conferences in the United Kingdom have dealt both with nar-
row issues in medicine as well as broad, societal issues. Increased
emphasis has been placed on the impact on the health care delivery
system of adopting new technologies, as well as social, economic,
and cultural implications, in an effort to make the consensus state-
ments as useful as possible in the public policy arena. This broad
scope was feasible because the sponsoring institution was an aca-
demic center rather than an active participant in the health delivery
system.
In The Netherlands, a technology assessment program has been
initiated by the National Organization for Quality Assurance in
Hospitals (Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiate Toets-
ing), a physician organization. The program began as a physician-
initiated quality assurance program, similar to the U.S. professional
standards review organizations and, later, the professional review
organizations. Only after its emergence was it recognized as an ana-
log to the consensus development program. This program is signif~-
cantly different from the previous two examples. Each assessment
is a long process, involving many internal review cycles. The main
feature that should be highlighted is that, since the consensus devel-
opment process is sponsored by a body of physicians, there is little
opportunity for contributions by other participants in health care
delivery. Because it is sponsored by physicians, the program has a
high potential for making a significant impact on practice behavior.
In fact, the conclusions reached by this consensus development pro-
gram serve as the basis for the quality assessment program in place
in Dutch hospitals (Klazinga et al., 1987~.
In France, the Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche
Medicale (INSEAM), a sister organization of NIH, attempted to es-
tablish a consensus development program in 1987. The effort was
unsuccessful because of the research organization's inability to ob-
tain the active participation of the country's social security admin-
istration and physician organizations in sponsoring consensus con-
ferences. This experience emphasizes the importance, in some quar-
ters, of bringing the major participants in health services delivery
into the assessment process in order to ensure the usefulness of
results.
The Israel Ministry of Health has sponsored jointly with the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. NIH a consensus confer-
OCR for page 15
SPONSORSHIP AND ROLE
1 r
ence on magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomogra-
phy (PET). Israel's need for this conference developed from a con-
troversy that arose between the philanthropic organization Hadas-
sah, the Ministry of Health, and the Sick Fund, which provides care
to the majority of Israelis, over the uses of the two technologies.
Lacking the expertise to resolve the issue, Israel called upon WHO,
which in turn called upon NIH. This broad sponsorship resulted in
the acquisition of the needed expertise. The conference concluded
that, although PET has great scientific importance, it was clearly not
ready for clinical applications. As is characteristic of a small coun-
try with a pluralistic health care system, the Israeli conference cov-
ered practical aspects of economic and human resources in addition
to assessment of the science. The conclusions drawn at the confer-
ence had a direct impact on the provision of imaging services in
Israel.
Interestingly, the United States had begun to plan a conference on
PET' but when it became clear to the planners that the recommenda-
tion was going to be negative for clinical applications, the confer-
ence was canceled. In April 1989, the Wall Street Journal carried
an article entitled "Debate Grows Over Clinics Pushing Costly PET
Scans," which examined the movement of PET into clinical settings
with questionable and costly applications (Wai] Street Journal, 1989~.
Israel's definitive action has enabled that country to deal effectively
with PET before it emerged as a problem, as now appears to be the
case in the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper described five models for consensus development
sponsorship and examined them in the context of the health service
delivery systems of the respective countries. Other consensus devel-
opment programs worldwide can be identified as belonging to one of
these five models (see Table I). It is critical for program sponsors to
consciously consider the mode} they intend to apply in light of their
desired objectives.
The goal of consensus development programs should be to re-
solve conflicts in as broad a range of factors as is relevant, including
safety, efficacy, cost and cost-effectiveness, indications and contra-
indications, acceptability, and other societal and ethical issues. The
likelihood of realizing this goal will be improved by expanding the
OCR for page 16
16
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
TABLE ~ Sponsorship and Scope of Consensus Conferences in
Five Countries
Country Sponsors Scope
United States National Institutes of Health Safety and efficacy
The Netherlands National Organization for Quality Quality assurance
Assurance in Hospitals
Sweden Swedish Medical Research Council Safety, efficacy, and
and Swedish Planning and cost-effectiveness
Rationalization Institute for the
Health and Social Services
United Kingdom The King's Fund College Broad societal
Israel All parmers in national health, plus Broad consensus
the World Health Organization and for application
the U.S. National Institutes of Health
sponsorship of the process to include all major participants in the
biomedical research and health care communities. These sponsors
should make every effort to select topics that represent a significant
challenge from the perspective of clinicians and the public at large.
In planning conferences, sponsors should consider both the current
state of science and the current state of clinical practice to assure
that an impact on clinical practice is possible. In particular, prefer-
ence should be given to topics for which motivation to change pol-
icy and clinical practice already exists among clinicians. Finally,
consensus development programs should adopt a procedure to re-
view consensus statements before they are published in final form.
By marshaling the resources of the research, practice, health fi-
nancing, and health policy communities, the consensus development
process can contribute significantly to any nation's health agenda.
REFERENCES
Calltorp, J. 1988. Consensus development conferences in Sweden: Effects on
health policy and administration. International Journal of Technology Assess-
ment in Health Care 4:75-88.
Kanouse, D.E., R.H. Brook, J.D. Winkler, J. Kosecoff, S.H. Berry, G.M. Carter, J.P.
Kahan, L. McCloskey, W.H. Rogers, C.M. Winslow, G.M. Anderson, L. Brodsley,
A. Fink, and L. Meredith. 1989. Changing medical practice through technology
assessment: An evaluation of the NIH consensus development program. Santa
Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
OCR for page 17
SPONSORSHIP AND ROLE
17
Klazinga, N.S., A.F. Casparie, and J.J.E. van Everdingen. 1987. Contribution of
medical decision-making to consensus development conferences. Health Policy
8:339-346.
Kosecoff, J., D.E. Kanouse, W.H. Rogers, L. McCloskey, C.M. Winslow, and R.H.
Brook. 1987. Effects of the National Institutes of Health consensus development
program on physician practice. Journal of the American Medical Association
258(19):2708-2713.
Perry, S. 1988. Consensus development: An historical note. International Journal
of Technology Assessment in Health Care 4:481-484.
Stocking, B. 1985. First consensus development conference in the United Kingdom:
On coronary artery bypass grafting, views of audience, panel, and speakers. Brit-
ish Medical Journal 291:713-716.
Wall Street Journal. April 3, 1989. Debate grows over clinics pushing costly PET
scans. B1.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
artery bypass
