Helix, a company formed by Illumina in 2015, has drawn a new section on the blurry line between healthcare and entertainment using direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests. For the surprisingly low price of $80, Helix will sequence a person’s exome, using the same Illumina machines most researchers use. After a one-time saliva submission, Helix clients can choose from a menu of existing analyses from outside vendors that vary from < $100 to about $250. Currently, the Helix website lists 19 different options for clients to learn about their DNA. They include one that uses DNA information to inform which wines are likely to be appealing and another for learning carrier status for a host of mutations that are associated with disease (e.g., cystic fibrosis) for future children if both parents are carriers. As Helix adds more vendors, clients will have the opportunity to order additional analyses to learn more information around their genetic make-up.
Despite the instability facing the American healthcare landscape at present, there continues to be growing focus on value. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has placed an increased emphasis on healthcare quality and patient satisfaction, especially with regard to Medicare reimbursement. Private payers are also seeking payment structures based on patient outcomes. In the face of such economic pressures, deciding which technologies to incorporate into patient care is a challenge, and will continue to be so in the future as new health technologies and brands enter the market. To meet clinical as well as financial goals, providers need to make sure that the health technologies they adopt are safe and have proven benefit, and are cost-effective.
We get it. Time is valuable. Particularly your own. Whether you are a payer, a healthcare provider, or a supply chain or value analysis professional, you have to make the most of the time you have to get your job done. When it comes to your search for evidence to determine whether a medical technology is safe, efficacious, and the best option, maybe you only read the abstract of an original research article for a quick overview of the results. Perhaps you couldn’t access the full text of the article without incurring a charge. The truth is, we have all done it at one point or another, primarily because we believe that the abstract provides an accurate synopsis of the highlights of the study.
In many cases, however, it doesn’t.
We have reached the end of our 4-part series! We hope you and your fellow supply chain and value analysis professionals found the information useful and have shared it with your peers. Don’t forget, you can also download our free eBook, Evidence: The 5th Domain of Value-Based Purchasing to read the content of this series in one complete package.
Didn’t read part 3? Here’s part 3.
Without further ado, we will review our fourth and final VBP domain as well as talk about the link between evidence and executive compensation.
Welcome back for part 3 of our 4-part series! We’re just past the halfway mark in our effort to tell you about the impact of evidence on value-based purchasing (VBP). If you found the previous installments informative, please share these blogs with your fellow supply chain and value analysis professionals. Don’t forget, you can also download our free eBook, Evidence: The 5th Domain of Value-Based Purchasing to read the content of this series in one complete package.
Need to catch up? Here’s part 2.
Let’s review our third VBP domain: Clinical Care (Outcomes and Process).
Hayes is a company of real people. We’d like you to get to know us and the ways we strive to provide personalized service to you, our clients. This month, let us introduce you to another valuable contributor to the Hayes mission of providing fiercely unbiased evidence, and a leader in the concept of delighting clients. Meet Dr. Mary McCabe Paine.
Dr. Paine joined Hayes in February 2017 as Director of Clinical Services. She is tasked with providing leadership and oversight of the Clinical Research Support (CRS) and Client Services teams who play a primary role in responding to the ad hoc research needs of all of our subscribers, as well as providing educational services and new-user orientation. Additionally, Mary oversees production of the Clinical Research Response (CRR) and Search & Summary product lines.
By now, it’s probably safe to say that some, if not all, of you have experienced some level of “big data fatigue.” The phrase has become ubiquitous, no matter the industry, although it seems none more so than in healthcare. Indeed, almost every healthcare news source to which I subscribe these days seems to have weekly articles, essays, white papers and blogs about big data. But there’s a common thread often missing from these reports. While they all report on the inevitability of big data’s influence on the healthcare sphere, as well as the manner in which electronic health/medical records (EHR/EMR) will continue to impact the future of care delivery, there is little discussion of the role of evidence as it relates to big data.
Back for more? Great! We hope these tips are proving helpful in improving your physician buy-in. If so, please share this blog with your supply chain and value analysis peers who might also be experiencing your struggles. If you haven’t already, download the companion eBook for a lighthearted look at the challenges of physician engagement.
On to part 3!
We’ve been seeing some talk out there about the “gold standard” when it comes to evidence assessment. Some seem to believe they’re the only ones that provide it. But when it comes right down to it, all that is…is talk.
It’s not just enough to say you use the “gold standard” for evidence assessment. You have to define it. You have to live it. You have to embody it.
We hope you found the first two tips for physician engagement helpful in sparking some ideas as well in initiating conversation with some of your clinical committees. If you missed it, check out part one of this blog series here.
Let’s pick up where we left off last time. Without further ado…