The rapid development of new health technologies for which there is limited, but promising, evidence has resulted in a daunting challenge — to provide care that meets population health needs and optimizes patient outcomes, demonstrates an efficient use of healthcare resources, and upholds basic principles of equity, access, and choice. In this paper, we introduce ‘Access with Evidence Development’ as a possible mechanism for addressing this challenge and discuss its application to the “Zamboni procedure” for Multiple Sclerosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
StanbrookMBHebertPC. Access to treatment for multiple sclerosis must be based on science, not hope. Available at: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.100835v1. Accessed 22 Mar 2011.
2.
MalagoniAMGaleottiRMenegattiE. Is chronic fatigue the symptom of venous insufficiency associated with multiple sclerosis? A longitudinal pilot study. Int Angiol. 2010; 29: 176–182.
3.
ZamboniPGaleottiRMenegattiE. A prospective open-label study of endovascular treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg.2009; 50: 1348–1358.
4.
ZamboniPMenegattiEWeinstock-GuttmanB. CSF dynamics and brain volume in multiple sclerosis are associated with extracranial venous flow anomalies: A pilot study. Int Angiol. 2010; 29: 140–18.
5.
ZivadinovRSchirdaCDwyerMG. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and iron deposition on susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis: A pilot case-control study. Int Angiol. 2010; 29: 158–175.
6.
House of Commons Debates: Official Report (Hansard): 3rd Session, 40th Parliament. 2010;145(062).
7.
BriggsARitchieKFenwickE. Access with evidence development in the UK: Past experience, current initiatives and future potential. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 163–170.
8.
ChapmanSReeveERajaratnamG. Setting up an outcomes guarantee for pharmaceuticals: New approach to risk sharing in primary care. Br Med J.2003; 326: 707–709.
9.
McCabeCJStafinskiTEdlinR. Access with evidence development schemes: A framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 143–152.
10.
MenonDMcCabeCJStafinskiT. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: A consensus statement from the Banff Summit. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 109–111.
11.
MillerFGPearsonSD. Coverage with evidence development—ethical issues and policy implications. Med Care. 2008; 46: 746–751.
12.
MohrPETunisSR. Access with evidence development: The US experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 153–162.
StafinskiTMcCabeCJMenonD. Funding the unfundable: Mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 113–142.
15.
KhanOFilippiMFreedmanMS. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol.2010; 67: 286–290.
16.
WolfBRBuckwalterJA. Randomized surgical trials and “sham” surgery: Relevance to modern orthopaedics and minimally invasive surgery. Iowa Orthop J.2006; 26: 107–11.
17.
HillAB. The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proc R Soc Med.1965; 58: 295–300.
18.
FinebergHV. The Learning Healthcare System—now and to come. Paper presented at: The Learning Healthcare System in 2010 and Beyond: Understanding, engaging, and communicating the possibilities. Institute of Medicine. April 1–2, 2010; Washington, DC.
