Unbiased Analysis of Today's Healthcare Issues

Do the US and UK health care systems have anything in common?

The United Kingdom’s National Health Services provides universal health coverage at not cost to patients.  On the other hand, in the U.S. not all people have insurance, and further insurance can be provided by public entities (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid), private and employer-provided health insurance, and other sources.  Whereas the NHS system is highly centralized, the U.S. […]

Read the rest of this entry »

The Case For Patient-Centered Assessment Of Value

Value assessments are all the rage these days. From ASCO to ESMO, from MSKCC to AHA/ACC, from AMCP to ICER, there are a variety of value frameworks (and acronyms) out there. In the Health Affairs blog today, Alan Balch and Darius Lakdawalla make the case that treatment value should be measured from a patient-centered approach. […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Innovations in Cancer Care: Capturing What Patients Value in the Calculus of Drug Costs

My current employer, Precision Health Economics, has posted an interesting research brief describing how traditional notions of value may not be capturing the full value patients receive from oncology treatments. A brief description is below but do check out the full report. As health care spending continues to rise, payers and providers struggle to accurately measure […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Smarter deductibles?

Are high deductible health plans a good thing?  Republicans typically argue yes as they say that increased cost sharing reduces moral hazard.  That is, when people have to pay for medical care out of pocket, they don’t ask for unnecessary care or use care more frugally.  Democrats typically argue that increased cost sharing reduces demand […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Advancing Value in Healthcare

Rapid biomedical progress and rising healthcare costs have led to increasing calls to link spending to value rather than volume of care in the United States. These calls have come from payers, patients, providers, and even innovators. For example, Medicare aims to link 90% of payments to some form of value-based reimbursement. Providers-based organizations such […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Assessing Healthcare Value: The Need for a Decentralized And Scientific Approach

Tomas Philipson has an interesting post in Forbes describe how value should be incorporated into the U.S. healthcare system but should be done in way suited for the American market. The American healthcare system is at a crossroads. Shifting to a system that reimburses based on value, rather than volume, of care requires changes in how we […]

Read the rest of this entry »

The Innovation and Value Initiative (IVI) has launched

I’m excited to announce that the Innovation and Value Initiative (IVI) has just launched.  I will be serving as the Director of Research.  Below, I have reposted the IVI press release so you can lear more about the initiative. Precision Health Economics today launched the Innovation and Value Initiative (IVI), a multi-stakeholder scientific initiative to […]

Read the rest of this entry »

How do we measure the value of and pay for biomedical innovation?

Dana Goldman, Samuel Nussbaum, and Mark Linthicum have an interesting post on the Health Affairs blog about innovation, value measurement and pricing.  The article mentions the new Innovation and Value Initiative, where I serve as the Director of Research.  An excerpt is below. New pricing mechanisms are needed to effectively link prices to value; we […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Measuring Quality in Cancer Care

Identifying high-quality, cancer care is a laudable goal.  However, a recent article by Alvarnas (2016) says the way many are trying to measure quality of cancer care currently is inadequate.  Specifically: Quality and value are multidimensional, but the narrow focus of many quality measures undermines their effectiveness and meaningfulness. (Porter 2010) Quality and value measures are all […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Patient perspective on cancer care funding

Improvement in survival (a.k.a. efficiacy) clearly are important, but what other factors matter?  According to a systematic literature review by MacLeod, Harris and Mahal (2016), these factors include: patients favour funding for cancer medicines that improve health outcomes demonstrated by ‘clinical efficacy’ [Oh et al.], ‘prolonged survival’ [Goldman et al., Seabury et al. Lakdawalla et al.] and/or […]

Read the rest of this entry »