Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
What if: The price of new provider fees were coordinated across Canada, supported by existing HTA capacity and networks? D...
Context <ul><li>Increasing expenditure on providers (CIHI, 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for gains in efficiency (...
Context <ul><li>Fees are cost-based - little incentive for choosing high- versus low-value service </li></ul><ul><li>Uncer...
“ Whipsawing” 18/07/11 “ Cars” pajamas
Current use of HTA in adopting new provider fees 18/07/11
Proposed Option: HTA-based Pricing Provider Services  <ul><li>A pan-Canadian approach, informed by HTA  </li></ul><ul><ul>...
Proposed Option: HTA-based Pricing Provider Services  18/07/11
Example using Value-Based Provider Fee Modifiers  18/07/11 Year Technology A (Cost = $200 per year) Technology B (Cost = $...
Proposed Option: Optional Functions <ul><ul><li>Develop  a standard approach to assessing the value of new fees, which cou...
Benefits <ul><li>Reduce inequity in fees for services across country </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce unnecessary political pressu...
Challenges <ul><li>Whose value? – QALYs may be insufficient - will require explicit, agreed-upon recognition of value </li...
Implications for Canada <ul><li>Recommendation: </li></ul><ul><li>New coordinating body required that must be governed pro...
Don Husereau [email_address] 18/07/11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

WHAT IF: The price of new provider fees were coordinated across Canada, supported by existing HTA capacity and networks?

1,906 views

Published on

Don Husereau, University of Ottawa

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

WHAT IF: The price of new provider fees were coordinated across Canada, supported by existing HTA capacity and networks?

  1. 1. What if: The price of new provider fees were coordinated across Canada, supported by existing HTA capacity and networks? Don Husereau, University of Ottawa [email_address] 18/07/11
  2. 2. Context <ul><li>Increasing expenditure on providers (CIHI, 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for gains in efficiency (WHO, 2010; OECD, 2011) </li></ul><ul><li>Provider choices (medical technology) source of expenditure growth (Newhouse, 1992; Cutler and McClellan 2001) </li></ul>18/07/11
  3. 3. Context <ul><li>Fees are cost-based - little incentive for choosing high- versus low-value service </li></ul><ul><li>Uncertainty of cost-effectiveness leads to “experimental“ or uninsured status </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of standardization for fee code development – opportunities for “whipsawing” </li></ul>18/07/11
  4. 4. “ Whipsawing” 18/07/11 “ Cars” pajamas
  5. 5. Current use of HTA in adopting new provider fees 18/07/11
  6. 6. Proposed Option: HTA-based Pricing Provider Services <ul><li>A pan-Canadian approach, informed by HTA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop standard method for translating HTA information into value-based fee price modifiers, and create value-based modifiers for future provider services. [Mandatory] </li></ul></ul>18/07/11
  7. 7. Proposed Option: HTA-based Pricing Provider Services 18/07/11
  8. 8. Example using Value-Based Provider Fee Modifiers 18/07/11 Year Technology A (Cost = $200 per year) Technology B (Cost = $2,100 per year) Total healthcare cost Units Fee Costs Tech A Cost Total Cost Units Fee Cost Tech B cost Total Cost Pre- modifiers ($30 fee for both) 1,000 $30,000 $200,000 $230,000 1,000 $30,000 $2,100,000 $2,130,000 $2,360,000 Post- modifiers ($45 for A; $15 for B) 1,400 $63,000 $280,000 $343,000 600 $9,000 $1,260,000 $1,269,000 $1,612,000 Difference 400 $33,000 $80,000 $113,000 -400 -21,000 -840,000 -861,000 -748,000
  9. 9. Proposed Option: Optional Functions <ul><ul><li>Develop a standard approach to assessing the value of new fees, which could be adopted by individual provinces. [Optional] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a resource-based relative-value schedule of all or some (those most often used) fee codes across provinces. [Optional] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review new fee codes and create suggested provider fees for adoption across jurisdictions. [Optional] </li></ul></ul>18/07/11
  10. 10. Benefits <ul><li>Reduce inequity in fees for services across country </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce unnecessary political pressure </li></ul><ul><li>Influence providers’ behavior toward best practices in use of health technologies and avoid unnecessary health expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Works with supplier-induced demand (Evans, 1974; McGuire and Pauly 1991) and fee-based utilization </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a platform for further health system efficiency through </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinated technology management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinated health and human resource needs </li></ul></ul>18/07/11
  11. 11. Challenges <ul><li>Whose value? – QALYs may be insufficient - will require explicit, agreed-upon recognition of value </li></ul><ul><li>Costly - requires priority setting </li></ul><ul><li>Variation in current fee schedules – requires communication and priority setting </li></ul><ul><li>What is high-value? – requires threshold or other measure of opportunity cost </li></ul>18/07/11
  12. 12. Implications for Canada <ul><li>Recommendation: </li></ul><ul><li>New coordinating body required that must be governed provincially. </li></ul>18/07/11
  13. 13. Don Husereau [email_address] 18/07/11

×