Costs and reimbursement gaps after implementation of third-generation left ventricular assist devices

Mishra, Vinod; Geiran, Odd; Fiane, Arnt E.; Sørensen, Gro; Andresen, Sølvi; Olsen, Ellen; Khushi, Ishtiaq; Hagen, Terje P.

doi:10.1016/j.healun.2009.06.029

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, a sophisticated analysis of the cost of this treatment and negotiations with medical insurers are necessary to allow optimal availability of the MCS for a broad patient population. 40 One possible way to reduce the costs is optimal patient selection for VAD support. However, the value of scores is limited, whereas the avoidance of cardiogenic shock is most important to save the patients and reduce complications and costs.…”

Section: Cablementioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in mechanical circulatory support: Year in review

Potapov

Krabatsch

Ventura

et al. 2011

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cablementioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in mechanical circulatory support: Year in review

Potapov

Krabatsch

Ventura

et al. 2011

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although drug therapy for CHF may be substantially cheaper than cancer drugs, the cost per patient of several implantable devices such as left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices may exceed $US100,000 and their cost-effectiveness remains uncertain [22,23]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oncologists’ and family physicians’ views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care

Greenberg

Hammerman

Vinker

et al. 2013

Isr J Health Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients.MethodsWe administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively.ResultsResponse rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients’ access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a “cancer premium” as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.

show abstract

“…Ultimately, this analysis intends to aid decision making regarding reimbursement of the LVAD by the public health service. 11 One limitation of this study is that the model does not incorporate the potential benefit of LVAD after HT. Some have argued that LVAD not only increases patient survival while implanted but that the benefit (in form of less deteriorated organs function vs conventionally treated patients) is also carried forward once the patient receives a donor heart.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%