The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

An Emerging Health Economics Issue

By Staff Reporters

Comparative Medical Effectiveness [CME] is not a new healthcare term or health economics concept. Federal initiatives specifically promoting CME were authorized under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, but the genesis took root decades before.

Finally … a Hot Topic

Comparative Medical Effectiveness has recently become a hot topic again throughout the arena of health care stakeholders, due to funding and initiatives advanced by the Obama administration, and the positive and negative reactions drawn by different sectors of stakeholders.

Related to Evidence Based Outcomes

For stakeholders including numerous health care policy organizations, the health plan industry, and various health care provider organizations: public and private promotion of Comparative Medical Effectiveness reviews and processes offer the potential for more evidence-based, outcome-benefit or even cost-benefit driven information to improve the health care decision making for all parties. And, for stakeholders concerned about limiting the role of government and third parties in their level of regulation and control over the direct delivery of specific patient care, Comparative Medical Effectiveness may become a lightening rod due to perceived potential as to how the process and information could ultimately be applied.

Definition of the CBO Report

The Congressional Budget Office Report “Comparative Effectiveness: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role” offers the definition that follows:

“As applied in the health care sector, an analysis of comparative medical effectiveness is simply a rigorous evaluation of the impact of different options that are available for treating a given medical condition for a particular set of patients. Such a study may compare similar treatments, such as competing drugs, or it may analyze very different approaches, such as surgery and drug therapy. The analysis may focus only on the relative medical benefits and risks of each option, or it may also weigh both the costs and the benefits of those options. In some cases, a given treatment may prove to be more effective clinically or more cost-effective for a broad range of patients, but frequently a key issue is determining which specific types of patients would benefit most from it. Related terms include cost–benefit analysis, technology assessment, and evidence-based medicine, although the latter concepts do not ordinarily take costs into account.”

Assessment

For related financial, economics, managed-care, insurance, health information technology and security, and health administrative terms and definitions of modernity, visit: http://www.springerpub.com/Search/marcinko

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated. How do you define this term, and is its’ very definition evolving?

Health Dictionary Series: http://www.springerpub.com/Search/marcinko

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/product/9780826105752

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Hospitals: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439879900

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

Filed under: Glossary Terms, Health Economics, Quality Initiatives, Recommended Books, Research & Development | Tagged: CBO, Comparative Medical Effectiveness, COngressional Budget Office, EBM, economics, evidence based dentistry, evidence based medicine, financial, health administration, health information technology, Health Insurance, health plans, healthcare industry, insurance, Managed Care, medical cost-benefits, medical outcomes-benefit, obama, orzag, security | 24 Comments »