Skip to main content
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1993 Nov;83(11):1635–1639. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.11.1635

Medical technology assessment and practice guidelines: their day in court.

G F Anderson 1, M A Hall 1, E P Steinberg 1
PMCID: PMC1694869  PMID: 8238696

Abstract

There is the expectation that outcomes research and the promulgation of medical practice guidelines will be able to identify and hopefully reduce the amount of unnecessary or inappropriate medical care through a variety of methods, including utilization review. However, past efforts by public and private insurers to deny claims on the basis of formal technology assessments or practice guidelines have frequently been overturned by the courts for multifarious reasons. This paper examines the court's reluctance to accept a variety of technology assessment methods in coverage policy decisions. The paper reviews the options that have been proposed to restrict judicial involvement in the formulation of coverage policy and then proposes a new option that employs a more precise taxonomy of medical practice assessment.

Full text

PDF
1635

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brook R. H. Health, health insurance, and the uninsured. JAMA. 1991 Jun 12;265(22):2998–3002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bunker J. P., Fowles J., Schaffarzick R. Evaluation of medical-technology strategies: proposal for an institute for health-care evaluation (second of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1982 Mar 18;306(11):687–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198203183061128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ferguson J. H., Dubinsky M., Kirsch P. J. Court-ordered reimbursement for unproven medical technology. Circumventing technology assessment. JAMA. 1993 Apr 28;269(16):2116–2121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kalb Paul E. Controlling health care costs by controlling technology: a private contractual approach. Yale Law J. 1990 Mar;99(5):1109–1126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Newcomer L. N. Defining experimental therapy--a third-party payer's dilemma. N Engl J Med. 1990 Dec 13;323(24):1702–1704. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199012133232411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Park R. E., Fink A., Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Kahn K. L., Merrick N. J., Kosecoff J., Solomon D. H. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for three procedures: theoretical indications vs indications used in practice. Am J Public Health. 1989 Apr;79(4):445–447. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.4.445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Saver R. S. Reimbursing new technologies: why are the courts judging experimental medicine? Stanford Law Rev. 1992 May;44(5):1095–1131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES