Health Care Technology Assessment Research Articles

Health care technology in Australia

The health care system in Australia is pluralistic, complex, and only loosely organized. The Commonwealth government is primarily concerned with funding programs and the development of broad policies. The introduction and diffusion of health care technologies in Australia is determined by a complex interaction of market forces, public funding, and regulation. Australia became involved in health care technology assessment in 1982. In 1990, activities were reorganized and the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee (AHTAC) was formed at the national level. Despite limited funding, Australia has had some significant successes in informing policy through appropriately targeted, well-timed assessment.

Health care technology in the Federal Republic of Germany

The basic goal of the German health care system is equal access to all medical services for all citizens. The federal government sets the legal framework for the system, but most health policy decisions are made through bargaining between large organizations within a legal framework. The federal government took little active role in health care until the early 1990s, when it became increasingly apparent that budgeting and other cost containment measures seemed to be insufficient to successfully reduce the growth of mandatory sickness funds expenditures. A 1993 law has attempted to address some of the most obvious deficiencies in the system, while encouraging a market-oriented approach to health care. Health care technology assessment has almost no role in the German health care system. Attempts by professionals and politicians to introduce technology assessment into the health care arena have been largely unsuccessful.

Health care technology as a policy issue

Health care technology has become an increasingly visible issue in many countries, primarily because of the rising costs of health care. In addition, many questions concerning quality of care are being raised. Health care technology assessment has been seen as an aid in addressing questions concerning technology, including benefits and costs. A number of industrialized countries have developed active programs of health care technology assessment during the past two decades. Eight countries at similar levels of socio-economic and health development —Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States—have been examined to gain insights into how they manage health care technology and what place technology assessment has in such management. In addition to seeking general information, specific cases—treatment for coronary artery disease, medical imaging, laparoscopic surgery, treatment of end-stage renal disease, neonatal intensive care, and breast cancer screening—were examined in each country.

Health care technology in the Netherlands

The Dutch health care system has been described as a ‘patchwork quilt’. It is a complicated system that has evolved from a constant adding and changing of institutions, regulations and responsibilities. Every citizen of the Netherlands has an entitlement to health care. The government authorities in the Netherlands have focused on creating favourable conditions in which the already existing private sector could expand or improve services. Although health care is provided largely through private institutions and practitioners, the system is considered to have a high degree of regulation. Until the 1980s, the Dutch health care authorities had no clearly defined philosophy of controlling the development and use of health care technology. Since the mid-1980s, however, a number of initiatives have been taken, policy instruments for controlling technology have been used in a more coordinated manner, and health care technology assessment has developed rapidly. The immediate future will see increasingly explicit use of the benefit package to control introduction of new technologies, as well as a growing influence of technology assessment itself.

Health care technology in the United States

The US health care system reflects the free market of the US economy—there is no fixed budget and no limit on expenditures in the loosely structured matrix of largely private-sector health industry components. Mainly because of the inaccessibility of adequate health care for a large segment of the population, and because the enormous cost of care threatens financial ruin for many more people, the first major reform of the system was debated in Congress for most of 1994, though, in the end, no leglislation was passed. One focus of the debate on spending has been the problem of excessive use of expensive medical technology and the need for some control, which, by and large, is lacking in the existing system. Health care technology assessment itself is a thriving industry in the United States, used by government, insurers, medical societies, hospitals, and other groups for their own purposes. At the national policy level, few opportunities for technology assessment to affect the health care industry exist, so most effort is directed at trying to affect medical practice at the level of the individual hospital and practitioner. The discernible effect of technology assessment has been minimal.

Health care technology in France

The French health care system combines freedom of medical practice with nation-wide social security. The system is centrally regulated with specific attention to technology. Prices and budgets are also regulated. Despite these controls, concerns about quality of care began to appear in France in the 1970s. At the same time, increasing costs became an issue. Health care technology assessment has been under discussion as part of the solution to these problems since the early 1980s, but little was done until 1989, when a national agency was established to develop and coordinate health care technology assessment in France. In 1991, a new law on hospitalization strengthened the role of the government in health care and required extensive evaluation activities. The law has made legal requirements for the health care system and the government at all levels, as well as establishing specific institutions and public grants to support evaluation and related activities. While further evolution of the health care system is inevitable, it seems clear that technology assessment is becoming one of the key tools for addressing problems of quality of care and rising costs.

Lessons from the eight countries

While the eight countries presented in this issue differ considerably from each other, they have important similarities. All have faced the problem of increasing health care expenditures, and all are coming to recognize problems with health care technology such as inappropriate use and poor quality of care. Health reforms appear to be accelerating in the countries examined. In addition, all countries now have stated policy goalds of assessing the benefits of health care technologies and most have established formal programs for health care technology assessment. Technology assessments impact varies, but it is becoming an important factor in technology acquisition. These trends point to a future for technology assessment and perhaps to better management of health care technology. International cooperation is important if this goal is to be realized.

Interests in Health Care Technology Assessment (HCTA) and HCTA training needs in eight European countries: Comett-assess

Between mid-1991 and mid-1992, nearly 300 different organisations involved in European health care contributed their views to a survey covering a range of topics relevant to health care technology assessment (HCTA) and economic appraisal of health technologies. Organisations who participated included manufacturers, health care institutions, professional associations, health care reimbursement or funding agencies, academic institutions and policy making agencies in eight European countries. The study was carried out as part of a larger project, COMETT-ASSESS, funded partially by the EC COMETT programme, to design and deliver training in health care technology assessment and socioeconomic evaluation.The survey demonstrates a high level of interest in assessment of health care technologies among European organisations, regardless of the type of organisation. Eight out of ten organisations report high-medium levels of interest in using HCTA in their decision making. A similar proportion report high-medium interest in increasing their general understanding of HCTA, and 2 out of 3 in carrying out assessments.All organisations clearly identify a need to train their staff in HCTA. The two key groups of staff requiring training are managers and clinicians. Manufacturers also report a need to train their marketing staff. The principal reason for training is in order to improve the use staff make of HCTA in their decision-making.This finding indicates that it may not be sufficient for European countries to develop effective HCTA dissemination strategies which improve the flow of information on technology assessment results; decision-makers within the organisations targeted will also need training, if they are to use this information effectively. As well as a need to train decision-makers, organisations also report a need to train their researchers, and to a lesser extent their own trainers.When it comes to the types of technologies which need to be assessed, organisations consistently report that they are interested in assessment of accepted health technologies, as well as new or recently introduced ones. In contrast, to date the major emphasis in many HCTA programmes has been on technologies which are yet to enter the service setting. More thought now needs to be given to developing methodologies for assessing technologies once they have reached the service setting. For this the presence of a skilled and well-trained group of health personnel will also be necessary.Provision of high quality, intensive training will offer quite a challenge in terms of identifying the needs of participants (a process which COMETT-ASSESS has initiated), devising suitable workshop materials and case studies, and designing follow-up materials to reinforce this training.

Criteria for standard versus experimental therapy.

This paper demarcates the boundaries between experimental and standard therapy and the influence of this division on policy, payment, and practice. It proposes a new category, crossover therapy, to deal with the many therapies that fall in between. It establishes four criteria to separate these categories: (1) the populations and conditions for which use is helpful; (2) the expected outcomes of care; (3) the skill, personnel, and site requirements and the economic, ethical, and legal understandings essential for use; and (4) the level of knowledge needed to certify that prospective users can apply it well. The paper then explores the use of experimental therapy in desperate situations and of standard therapies in new areas and gives policy recommendations to facilitate these actions.

Report from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Literature searching and evidence interpretation for assessing health care practices.

Report from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Literature searching and evidence interpretation for assessing health care practices.

Report from the Center for Technology Assessment and Quality Improvement in Health Care of the Veneto Region (Italy)

Report from the Center for Technology Assessment and Quality Improvement in Health Care of the Veneto Region (Italy)

Health care reform for Americans with severe mental illnesses: report of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.

This report was produced in response to a request by the Senate Committee on Appropriations that the National Advisory Mental Health Council prepare and submit a report on the cost of insurance coverage of medical treatment for severe mental illness commensurate with the coverage of other illnesses and an assessment of the efficacy of treatment of severe mental disorders. About 5 million Americans (2.8% of the adult population) experience severe mental disorders in a 1-year period. Treating these disorders now costs the nation an estimated $20 billion a year (with an additional $7 billion a year in nursing home costs). These costs represent 4% of total U.S. direct health care costs. When the social costs are also included, severe mental disorders exact an annual financial toll of $74 billion. This total accounts for the dollar costs of shortened lives and lost productivity, as well as the costs incurred in the criminal justice and social service systems. However, it cannot begin to account in human terms for the enormous emotional cost and pain borne by Americans with severe mental illness and by their families. Many myths and misunderstandings contribute to the stigmatization of persons with mental illness and to their often limited access to needed services. For example, millions of Americans and many policy makers are unaware that the efficacy of an extensive array of treatments for specific mental disorders has been systematically tested in controlled clinical trials; these studies demonstrate that mental disorders can now be diagnosed and treated as precisely and effectively as are other disorders in medicine. The existence of effective treatments is only relevant to those who can obtain them. Far too many Americans with severe mental illness and their families find that appropriate treatment is inaccessible because they lack any insurance coverage or the coverage they have for mental illness is inequitable and inadequate. For example, private health insurance coverage for mental disorders is often limited to 30-60 inpatient days per year, compared with 120 days or unlimited days for physical illnesses. Similarly, the Medicare program requires 50% copayment for outpatient care of mental disorders, compared with 20% copayment for other medical outpatient treatment. These inequities in both the public and private sectors can and should be overcome.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Radiology and the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.

Radiology and the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.

Reports from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Evidence for health care technology assessment: a guide to searching the literature and interpreting the evidence.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Erratum

Bernstein, S. J., Kosecoff, J., Gray, D., Hampton, J. R., & Brook, R. H. (1993). The appropriateness of the use of cardiovascular procedures: British versus U.S. perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 9, 3–10.Page 3: David Gray's affiliation was incorrectly listed. His correct affiliation is University Hospital, Nottingham, U.K.

Reports from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Critical analysis in medicine.

Reports from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Critical analysis in medicine.

Report from the Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA): Satellite Symposium to the Eighth Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC)

Report from the Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA): Satellite Symposium to the Eighth Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC)

Assessing Technology Assessment: Early Results of the Quebec Experience

The Quebec Council on Health Care Technology Assessment was created in 1988. Its functions are to promote, support, and produce health care technology assessments and to advise the Minister of Health. An independent review of the council's first four years of operation was commissioned. The evaluation team concluded that the council showed very good results in terms of the scope, quality, and impact of its production and succeeded in establishing its credibility. However, the evaluation team suggested that the council adopt a more active strategy toward the promotion and diffusion of its reports. Some critical determinants of success of the Quebec experience in technology assessment are discussed.

Technology assessment in healthcare: A means for pursuing the goals of biomedical engineering

The goals of biomedical engineering include the improvement of health and life quality of mankind. However, the contribution of biomedical engineering to those worthy ends must be more clearly related. Biomedical engineers should become more active in demonstrating to policymakers and other parties in healthcare the value of the contributions of healthcare technology. Technology assessment (TA) is a form of investigation designed to identify and evaluate the implications of technologies so as to inform policymaking. Among the important trends in TA that should be of special interest to biomedical engineers are the increasingly higher methodological standards for accepting evidence from clinical investigations, and the use of quality-of-life measures for determining how technologies affect people's lives.

Work organisation, work environment and the use of medical equipment: a survey study of the impact on quality and safety.

In a study of hospital staff's perceived quality of care and worry, related to the use of medical equipment, a systems approach was used. This included training and user aspects on the equipment, environmental ergonomics, work organisation and psychosocial work conditions. In a survey study, 543 hospital staff members from seven departments with various degrees of equipment utilisation participated. By means of factor analysis, factors which were important to perceived quality of care and worry were determined. Adaptation of equipment and environment and training on the use of equipment were shown to be important. However, several organisational and psychosocial factors turned out to have a still greater impact. In the assessment of healthcare technologies which include medical equipment a holistic systems approach is therefore advocated.