Skip to main content
×
Home

INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

  • Henry S. Richardson (a1)
Abstract

Current thinking about the methodology of health technology assessment (HTA) seems to be dominated by two fundamental tensions: [1] between maintaining a tight focus on quality-adjusted life-years and broadening its concern out to pay attention to a broader range of factors, and [2] between thinking of the evaluative dimensions that matter as being objectively important factors or as ones that are ultimately of merely subjective importance. In this study, I will argue that health is a tremendously important all-purpose means to enjoying basic human capabilities, but a mere means, and not an end. The ends to which health is a means are manifold, requiring all those engaged in policy making to exercise intelligence in a continuing effort to identify them and to think through how they interrelate. Retreating to the subjective here would be at odds with the basic idea of HTA, which is to focus on certain objectively describable dimensions of what matters about health and to collect empirical evidence rigorously bearing on what produces improvements along those dimensions. To proceed intelligently in doing HTA, it is important to stay open to reframing and refashioning the ends we take to apply to that arena. The only way for that to happen, as an exercise of public, democratic policy making, is for the difficult value questions that arise when ends clash not to be buried in subjective preference information, but to be front-and-center in the analysis.

  • View HTML
    • 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.

      INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      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.

      INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      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.

      INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Dewey J. The need for a recovery of philosophy. In: Morris D, Shapiro I, eds. Dewey, the political writings. Indianapolis: Hackett; 1993 [1917]:67.
2. Richardson HS. Democratic autonomy: Public reasoning about the ends of policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
3. Horton R. The error of our health technology assessment ways. Lancet. 2013;382:1318.
4. Ungar WJ, Prosser LA, Burnett HF. Values and evidence colliding: Health technology assessment in child health. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:417419.
5. Hofmann B, Droste S, Oortwijn W, Cleemput I, Sacchini D. Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: A revision of the socratic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:39.
6. Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Policy brief: Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2005.
7. Dewey J. Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1939.
8. Richardson HS. Mapping out improvements in justice: Comparing vs. aiming. Rutgers Univ Law J. 2012;43:211241.
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. (Para. 6.2.21). London: NICE.
10. Brazier JE, Connell J, Papaioannou D, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:34.
11. Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ. 1997;112:375405.
12. Mill JS. Utilitarianism. (ed. Sher George). Indianapolis: Hackett; 1979 [1861], p. 10.
13. Anand P, Hunter G, Carter I, et al. The development of capability indicators. J Hum Dev Capabil. 2009;10:125152.
14. Nussbaum MC. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2011:3334.
15. Richardson HS. Using final ends for the sake of better policy-making. J Human Dev Capabil. 2015;16:161172.
16. Richardson HS. Capabilities and the definition of health: Comments on Venkatapuram. Bioethics. 2016;30:17.
17. Venkatapuram S. Health Justice. Cambridge: Polity; 2011.
18. Nordenfelt L. Standard circumstances and vital goals: Comments on Venkatapuram's Critique. Bioethics. 2013;27:280284.
19. Nordenfelt L. On the nature of health: An action-theoretic approach. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1987.
20. Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books; 1999.
21. Boorse C. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philos Public Aff. 1975;5:4968.
22. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:167176.
23. Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:32.
24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Social value judgments: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. London: NICE; 2008:17.
25. D'Agostino F. Incommensurability and commensuration: The common denominator. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing; 2003.
26. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. Report by the Commission of the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/documents.htm.
27. Alkire S, Foster J. Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J Publ Econ. 2011;95:476487.
28. Alkire S, Foster J, Seth S, et al. Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
29. Richardson HS. The stupidity of the cost-benefit standard. J Legal Stud. 2000;29:9711003.
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

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 90 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 263 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.