Advertisement

The Wisdom Tooth of Health Technology Assessment

  • Ricard Meneu
Chapter
First Online:
  • 973 Downloads

Abstract

The first published guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) started with the words “the practice of prophylactic removal of pathology-free impacted third molars should be discontinued in the NHS” [1]. Since then, NICE has produced almost 300 more technological appraisals of medical devices, tests, surgical procedures and, mainly, drugs. Maybe it is time to assess whether health technology assessment (HTA) has reached its coming of age or is merely an impacted molar in the decision-making process.

Keywords

National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Wisdom Tooth Health Policy Decision Health Technology Assessment Agency 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    NICE. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the extraction of wisdom teeth. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 1. March 2000. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11385/31993/31993.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Blomqvist A, Busby C, Husereau D. Capturing value from health technologies in lean times. C.D. HOWE Institute. Commentary No. 396. Toronto. 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:7-9. doi:  10.1017/S0266462309090333.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    O’Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment in evidence-based health care reimbursement decisions around the world: an overview. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl. 2):S1-5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Towse A, Buxton M. Three challenges to achieving better analysis for better decisions: generalisability, complexity and thresholds. OHE briefing no 42, October 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Healy P. Pugatch MP. Theory versus Practice: discussing the governance of health technology assessment systems, Stockholm Network. London 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: what are we talking about? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl. 2):S6-7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kristensen B, Busse R. How can the impact of health technology assessments be enhanced? European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, World Health Organization 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Goodman C. HTA 101. Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, 2004. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/hta101.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Schwarzer R, Siebert U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009; 25(3):305-14.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parada A, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, grupo AUnETS. Evaluacion del impacto bibliografico de las agencias y unidades espanolas de evaluacion de tecnologias sanitarias. MInisterio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Madrid 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright D, Milne R, Price A, Tose N. Assessing the international use of health technology assessments: exploring the merits of different methods when applied to the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):192-7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerhardus A, Dorendorf E, Rottingen JA, Sarria Santamera A. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Ch. 6. In: Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Palmhoj Nielsen C, Busse R (eds). Health technology assessment and health policymaking in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen (Denmark): World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008. Available in: www.euro.who.int/Document/E91922.pdf.
  21. 21.
    HTA Glossary. HTAi (Health Technology Assessment International). Oct 8, 2013. (http://htaglossary.net/health+technology+assessment+%28HTA%29).
  22. 22.
    WHO. Health technology assessment. http://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en/.
  23. 23.
    EUnetHTA (European network for Health Technology Assessment) http://www.eunethta.eu/about-us/faq.
  24. 24.
    Banta HD, Luce BR. Health care technology and its assessment: an international perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coates & Jarratt, Inc. Course workbook: technology assessment. Anticipating the consequences of technological choices. Washington, DC. 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clement FM1, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009 Oct 7;302(13):1437-43.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. HERC research paper 05/14. Oxford: Health Economics Research Centre. 2014.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schaffer SK, Sussex J, Devlin N, Walker A. Searching for Cost-effectiveness Thresholds in NHS Scotland. Office of Health Economics. Research paper 13/07. London 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gerhardus A, Dintsios CM. The impact of HTA reports on health policy: a systematic review. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005 Nov 2;1:Doc02. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011311/pdf/HTA-01-02.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Schaffer SK, Sussex J, Hughes D, Devlin N. Opportunity Costs of Implementing NICE Decisions in NHS Wales. Office of Health Economics. Research paper 14/02. London 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Husereau D, Cameron CG. Value-based pricing of pharmaceuticals in Canada: Opportunities to expand the role of health technology assessment? Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Paper 5. Ottawa 2011 (http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/commissioned-researchreports/Husereau-Dec2011-EN.pdf?sfvrsn=0).
  32. 32.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Economists’ dream or nightmare? Maximizing health gains from available resources using the NICE guidelines. Health Economics Policy and Law. 2007;2:193-202.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drummond M. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for reimbursement decisions. What have we achieved? CHE Research paper 75, University of York, 2012.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: should “reasonable decisions” lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? CMAJ. 2003;168(7):849-51.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Economist Intelligence Unit Healthcare. Value-based healthcare. The implications for pharma strategy, London, 2014.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peckham M. Scientific basis of health services. London: BMJ Pub. Group; 1996.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 4: using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 Suppl 1:S4.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lehoux P, Denis J-L, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30(4):603-41.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCloskey D. Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Culyer AJ. Social values in health and social care. London: Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England – The King’s Fund. 2014. Available: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/commission-background-paper-social-valueshealth-social-care.pdf.
  41. 41.
    Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239-44.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729-68.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stafinski T, Menon D, Marshall D, Caulfield T. Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain? Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rawlins MD. Evidence, values, and decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014; 30(2):233-8.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Drummond M, Sorenson C. Nasty or nice? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2009;12 Suppl 2:S8-13.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kranzberg’s M. Technology and history: “Kranzberg’s Laws” Bulletin of Science, Technology Society. 1995;15:5-13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricard Meneu
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research in Health and EconomicsPompeu Fabra UniversityBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options