Skip to main content
×
Home

Health technology assessment in the United States

  • Bryan Luce (a1) and Rebecca Singer Cohen (a1)
Abstract

Objectives: To describe and explore the reasons for the current health technology assessment (HTA) landscape in the United States.

Methods: Relying on multiple historical literature and other documents as well as drawing on personal experiences and observations, we describe, evaluate, and explain the evolving and dynamic HTA-related evidence landscape.

Results: The present HTA-related landscape is a product of a dynamic, somewhat turbulent path in the United States. Many early aggressive federal efforts beginning in the 1970s were rejected in the 1980s only to be revived by the mid-1990s and continue to strengthen today, likely due to diffusing private sector political opposition from de-linking HTA from policy decisions (e.g., coverage, clinical guidelines) and omitting economic evaluation. Meanwhile, private sector HTA efforts have remained active during the entire period.

Conclusions: The current HTA-related landscape is at least as dynamic as it has been at any point in its turbulent 30-year history and is likely to continue as health reform in the US is debated once again.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Health technology assessment in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Health technology assessment in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Health technology assessment in the United States
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP). The AMCP format for formulary submissions, version 2.0. http://www.amcp.org/data/nav_content/formatv20.pdf (accessed August 29, 2006).
2.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Effective health care. Homepage. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
3.American College of Physicians. ACP clinical practice guidelines. http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
4.Banta D & Jonsson E. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Health Care Technol. 2009; 25 (suppl. 1)16.
5.Banta HD, Luce BR. Health care technology and its assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
6.BlueCross BlueShield Association: Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). AHRQ evidence-based practice center. http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/evidence-based-practice-center.html (accessed August 29, 2006).
7.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare evidence development and coverage advisory committee. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/FACA/02_MEDCAC.asp (accessed August 29, 2006).
8.Consumer Reports Health. Consumer Reports best buy drugs. http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/index.htm (accessed August 29, 2006).
9.Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of the health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.
10.Dartmouth atlas of health care. Available at: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org. Accessed: 29 August 2006.
11.ECRI Institute. Evidence-based practice center. https://www.ecri.org/About/Pages/EvidenceBasedPracticeCenter.aspx (accessed August 29, 2006).
12.Gross DJ, Schondelmeyer SW, Purvis L. Rx watchdog report: Trends in prices of prescription drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries. http://www.aarp.org/research/health/drugs/rx_watchdog.html (accessed August 29, 2006).
13.Health Tech. What's new at HealthTech. http://www.healthtechcenter.org/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
14.Institute of Medicine. Appendix A: About the Council on Health Care Technology and rosters of council and panels. In: Medical Technology Assessment Directory: A pilot reference to organizations, assessments, and information resources. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 1988:631640.
15.International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Homepage. http://www.ispor.org/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
16.The Learning Healthcare System. Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2006.
17.Levin-Epstein M. Deathwatch for AHCPR ends as funding mandate changes. Managed Care Magazine. September 1999.
18.Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC). Report to the Congress: Promoting greater efficiency in Medicare. June 2007. http://www.medpac.gov/documents/jun07_entirereport.pdf (accessed August 29, 2006).
19.Neumann PJ.Using cost-effective analysis to improve health care: Opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
20.Oregon Health and Science University. Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP). http://www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
21.Orzag PR, Ellis P. The challenge of rising health care costs—A view from the Congressional Budget Office. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:17931795.
22.Rettig RA.Health care in transition: Technology assessment in the private sector. Los Angeles, CA: Rand; 1997.
23.Steinberg EP, Luce BR. Evidence based? Caveat emptor! Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:8092.
24.Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:16241632.
25.United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Technology assessment: An effective resource for evidence-based managers. VA Technology Assessment Program VATAP. http://www.va.gov/VATAP/ (accessed August 29, 2006).
26.Wennberg JE. Dealing with medical practice variation: A proposal for action. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3:632.
27.Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:572585.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 303 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 248 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.