Christopher S. Girod
Milliman & Robertson Inc.
David V. Axene
Milliman & Robertson Inc.
MANAGED CARE August 2000. ©2000 MediMedia USA

Christopher S. Girod

Milliman & Robertson Inc.

David V. Axene

Milliman & Robertson Inc.

The last half of the 20th century presented a dramatic increase in new health care technologies and improved health care practices. The results have been largely predictable: People live longer and enjoy healthier lives, but they experience skyrocketing health care expenditures. The relationship between benefits and costs seems clear. You get what you pay for. Or do you?

As new technologies or interventions are developed and introduced, governments, providers, and payers determine whether the new technology or intervention should be permitted, used, or paid for, respectively. They are often trying to determine whether it is appropriate or whether it has value. The expected advantages and disadvantages of the new technology or practice are evaluated in terms of a variety of measures, including patient outcomes and costs. In the case of new technologies, this process often is performed prospectively, without the availability or use of evidence-based outcomes studies. Expected outcomes and costs must be projected. The assessment process involves answering questions such as:

  • What are the advantages for patients?
  • What are the expected costs for third-party payers?
  • How will providers' revenues be affected?
  • How are employment-related costs affected (e.g., disability income benefits, lost productivity)?
  • Does the new technology represent an expected increase or decrease in long-term health care costs for the community as a whole?
  • If there are additional costs involved, are they outweighed by the potential benefits?
  • How can the perspectives of all parties be adequately represented in a single measure of value?

This paper discusses the process of value assessment, and presents a proposed value assessment methodology that can be used to evaluate any health care technology, procedure, drug, or medical management process.

Author addresses

Chris Girod, ASA, MAAA
Health Care Management Consultant
Milliman & Robertson Inc.
9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92121
888-558-4010, ext 201
858-597-0111 (fax)
E-mail:chris.girod@milliman.com
www.milliman.com

David V. Axene, FSA, MAAA
Principal & Health Care Management Consultant
Milliman & Robertson Inc.
9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92121
888-558-1236 (direct line)
877-793-1636 (direct fax)
E-mail: david.axene@milliman.com
www.milliman.com

This paper has been peer reviewed by appropriate members of Managed Care's Editorial Advisory Board.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.