A health insurer actually poses the big question

Publication
Article
Oncology NEWS InternationalOncology NEWS International Vol 19 No 5
Volume 19
Issue 5

In today’s contentious debate over how to best deliver cost-effective, value-added healthcare, insurers have become the villain du jour, taking a backseat only to Wall Street fat cats.

In today's contentious debate over how to best deliver cost-effective, value-added healthcare, insurers have become the villain du jour, taking a backseat only to Wall Street fat cats. It's largely a bum rap. There are plenty of innovative insurers out there, bringing high-value coverage to their customers.

Most physicians contend that healthcare insurers have only one responsibility: Paying claims promptly and accurately. But according to a recent article in The Oncologist by Lee Newcomer, MD, insurers provide several more important roles; chief among them is creating risk-sharing pools and negotiating with providers to keep costs down for their customers. There is also another important role: parsing out ineffective treatments and drugs (15:32-35, supplement 1, 2010).

For instance, at United Healthcare, an internal study in 2005 showed that 12% of patients receiving trastuzumab (Herceptin) therapy did not have HER2 overexpression, an astounding finding. By being aggressive about determining whether a treatment is actually necessary, correctly applied, or less effective than another therapy, innovative payers like Dr. Newcomer bring dollar value to the complex patient, provider, payer mix.

In his article Dr. Newcomer makes another extremely interesting and, considering the trend toward comparative effectiveness research, timely comment: "Unfortunately, insurers are all failing to perform the most important strategy for healthcare coverage-providing only effective therapies at a reasonable cost."

He goes on to address the one question that keeps players in healthcare reform up at night: "The entire healthcare industry needs to examine the value of the services offered to patients. It should ask the question-how do we get to the desired outcome at the best possible cost? That is the most important and heretofore unanswered question in the debate over healthcare reform."

Recent Videos
Thinking about how to sequence additional agents following targeted therapy may be a key consideration in the future of lung cancer care.
Endobronchial ultrasound, robotic bronchoscopy, or other expensive procedures may exacerbate financial toxicity for patients seeking lung cancer care.
Destigmatizing cancer care for incarcerated patients may help ensure that they feel supported both in their treatment and their humanity.
Patients with mediastinal lymph node involved-lung cancer may benefit from chemoimmunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting.
2 experts are featured in this series.
Advancements in antibody drug conjugates, bispecific therapies, and other targeted agents may hold promise in lung cancer management.
A lower percentage of patients who were released within 1 year of incarceration received guideline-concurrent care vs incarcerated patients.
Stressing the importance of prompt AE disclosure before they become severe can ensure that a patient can still undergo resection with curative intent.
A collaboration between the Connecticut Departments of Health and Corrections and the COPPER Center aimed to improve outcomes among incarcerated patients.
Related Content