Advertisement

Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment

  • H. David Banta
Chapter

Abstract

During recent years, a concern for the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare systems has been developing [1–4]. Such concerns have been fuelled by the increasing expenditure for healthcare in most countries, especially considering the aging populations that will certainly drive the expenditures higher. At the same time, many questions have been raised about the benefits and risks of healthcare. The main concern might be summarised as assuring “value for money in healthcare” [5].

Keywords

Technology Assessment Health Technology Assessment Radiation Therapy Oncology Group International Diabetes Federation Technol Assess Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. The world health report 2000: improving health system performance, Geneva, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson G, Sotir Hussey P. Comparing health system performance in OECD countries. Health Affairs. 2001;20:3219-32.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The World Bank. Creating evidence for better health financing decisions. Washington DC, 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Squires D. Multinational comparisons of health systems data 2011. Washington DC: The Commonwealth Fund, 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorensen C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. European Observatory Studies Series No. 13, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonsson E. History of health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):42-52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    INAHTA website. Accessed April 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Granados A, Jonsson E, Banta, HD, Bero L, Bonair A, Cochet C, et al. Eur-Assess project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int J Technol Ass Health Care. 1997;13:220-86.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EUnetHTA. Facilitation of national strategy for continuous development and sustainability of HTA. EUnetHTA website, November 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hailey D, Babidge W, Cameron A, Davignon L. Health technology assessment agencies and decision makers. An INAHTA guidance document. INAHTA website, May 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessment: identifying the visions guiding an evolving innovation in Canada. Journal of Health Politics, Policies and Law. 2005;30:603-42.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banta D, Oortwijn W. Conclusion. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626-35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen F, Nielson C, Busse R, editors. Health technology assessment and health policy making in Europe. Current states, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, European Observatory on Health systems and Policies, Observatory Studies Series No. 14, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oortwijn W, Broos P, Vondeling H, Banta D, Todorova L. Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:424-34.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lemgruber, A. Presentation to the WHO Global Forum on Medical Devices, Geneva, 23 November, 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Novaes H, Elias F. Use of health technology assessment in decision-making processes by the Brazilian Ministry of Health on the incorporation of technologies in the Brazilian Unified National Health system. Cad Saude Publica. 2013;29(Suppl):S7-S16.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    //:keionline.org/sites/default/files/PhRMA 2014 Special 301 Submission.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davignon L, Beauchamp S, Martin V. Logic model for improving the impact of public health technology assessment organization in decision making in the health system. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2009;38(Suppl):S.67.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Policena J, Clifford T, Elshaug A, Mitton C, Russell E, Skidmore B. Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision making in health care: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:174-84.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hailey D. Personal communication. April, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birstin HR, Conn A, Setnik G, Rucker DW, Cleary PD, O’Neil AC, et al. Benchmarking and quality improvement. The Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study. Am J Med. 1999;107:437-39.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Birstin HR. The journey to electronic performance measurement. Ann Int Med. 2013;158:131-32.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carlson J, Sullivan S, Garrison L, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;960:179-90.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chernew ME, Rosen AB, Fendrick AM. Value-based insurance design. Health Affairs. 2007;27:103-12.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fendrick AM, Martin JJ, Weiss AE. Value-based insurance design: more health at any price. Health Serv Res 2012;47:404-13.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Starr M, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Oxman A. The origins, evolution, and future of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):182-95.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Institute of Health Economics. IHE report, health technology assessment on the net. Alberta Canada, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Radiation Therapy Oncology Group website. Accessed April, 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    International Diabetes Federation website. Accessed April, 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    IDF. Position statement: self-management education. IDF website. April, 2014.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ECORYS. DAWN2 follow up health policy analysis - enhancing person centred diabetes care. Final report. Rotterdam. 19 March, 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. David Banta
    • 1
  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations