Cargando…
Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved
BACKGROUND: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is responsible for the assessment of medical imaging tests proposed for public funding. A number of factors related to the clinical or cost effectiveness of an imaging service may impact on the funding decision. OBJECTIVE: To determine what...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9310840/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35243777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13386 |
_version_ | 1784753477414551552 |
---|---|
author | Hill, Hayley Mittal, Ruchi Merlin, Tracy |
author_facet | Hill, Hayley Mittal, Ruchi Merlin, Tracy |
author_sort | Hill, Hayley |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is responsible for the assessment of medical imaging tests proposed for public funding. A number of factors related to the clinical or cost effectiveness of an imaging service may impact on the funding decision. OBJECTIVE: To determine what evidentiary and economic factors impact most on MSAC recommendations for the funding of imaging tests. METHODS: Information was extracted on health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical imaging tests published on the MSAC website, with a funding decision between 2006 to July 2021. Imaging tests with diagnostic, staging or screening indications were eligible. Data were extracted in test‐indication pairs and included data on evidence quality, quantity, consistency of findings, cost‐effectiveness and financial impact. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with adjustments for clustered data. RESULTS: Overall, 42 imaging test applications to MSAC were included, representing 91 clinical indications. Most were diagnostic tests. The most common evidentiary concerns reported by MSAC were limited evidence (36%), low quality evidence (26%), and applicability of the data (22%). The reference standard for diagnostic accuracy was imperfect or not appropriate in 25% of the indications. In regression analyses, uncertainty about cost‐effectiveness of an imaging service predicted most negative funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The single biggest contributor to a negative funding decision by MSAC was uncertainty about the cost‐effectiveness of the imaging service. This was likely driven by uncertainty regarding the impact on patient health. HTAs that are able to demonstrate the clinical utility of a new imaging service are more likely to publicly funded. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9310840 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93108402022-07-29 Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved Hill, Hayley Mittal, Ruchi Merlin, Tracy J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol MEDICAL IMAGING BACKGROUND: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is responsible for the assessment of medical imaging tests proposed for public funding. A number of factors related to the clinical or cost effectiveness of an imaging service may impact on the funding decision. OBJECTIVE: To determine what evidentiary and economic factors impact most on MSAC recommendations for the funding of imaging tests. METHODS: Information was extracted on health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical imaging tests published on the MSAC website, with a funding decision between 2006 to July 2021. Imaging tests with diagnostic, staging or screening indications were eligible. Data were extracted in test‐indication pairs and included data on evidence quality, quantity, consistency of findings, cost‐effectiveness and financial impact. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with adjustments for clustered data. RESULTS: Overall, 42 imaging test applications to MSAC were included, representing 91 clinical indications. Most were diagnostic tests. The most common evidentiary concerns reported by MSAC were limited evidence (36%), low quality evidence (26%), and applicability of the data (22%). The reference standard for diagnostic accuracy was imperfect or not appropriate in 25% of the indications. In regression analyses, uncertainty about cost‐effectiveness of an imaging service predicted most negative funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The single biggest contributor to a negative funding decision by MSAC was uncertainty about the cost‐effectiveness of the imaging service. This was likely driven by uncertainty regarding the impact on patient health. HTAs that are able to demonstrate the clinical utility of a new imaging service are more likely to publicly funded. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-03 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9310840/ /pubmed/35243777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13386 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | MEDICAL IMAGING Hill, Hayley Mittal, Ruchi Merlin, Tracy Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title | Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title_full | Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title_fullStr | Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title_full_unstemmed | Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title_short | Evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved |
title_sort | evidence‐based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by medicare in australia: how it happens and how it can be improved |
topic | MEDICAL IMAGING |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9310840/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35243777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13386 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hillhayley evidencebasedfundingofnewimagingapplicationsandtechnologiesbymedicareinaustraliahowithappensandhowitcanbeimproved AT mittalruchi evidencebasedfundingofnewimagingapplicationsandtechnologiesbymedicareinaustraliahowithappensandhowitcanbeimproved AT merlintracy evidencebasedfundingofnewimagingapplicationsandtechnologiesbymedicareinaustraliahowithappensandhowitcanbeimproved |