Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 4
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Grosse, Scott 2015. Showing Value in Newborn Screening: Challenges in Quantifying the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Detection of Phenylketonuria and Cystic Fibrosis. Healthcare, Vol. 3, Issue. 4, p. 1133.


    Fischer, Katharina E 2012. Decision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 12, Issue. 1,


    Rogowski, WH 2013. AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF THE FOURTH HURDLE. Health Economics, Vol. 22, Issue. 5, p. 600.


    GROSSE, SCOTT D. THOMPSON, JOHN D. DING, YAO and GLASS, MICHAEL 2016. The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience. The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 94, Issue. 2, p. 366.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 27, Issue 4
  • October 2011, pp. 313-321

The role of health technology assessment in coverage decisions on newborn screening

  • Katharina E. Fischer (a1), Scott D. Grosse (a2) and Wolf H. Rogowski (a3)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462311000468
  • Published online: 29 September 2011
Abstract

Objectives: The role and impact of health technology assessment (HTA) in health policy has been widely discussed. Researchers have started to analyze how decisions on coverage of new technologies are made. Although the involvement of HTA may be an indicator of a well established decision process, this hypothesis requires validation. Also, it is not known whether HTA involvement is associated with other characteristics of decision making like participation or transparency. The primary objective of this study was to develop and test statements on the association between the publication of an HTA and coverage decision making for newborn screening tests in European Union countries.

Methods: Five statements were defined on the relative role of HTA during the steps of decision processes: trigger, participation, publication, assessment, and appraisal. For this purpose, data on twenty-two decision processes in the area of newborn screening across Europe were analyzed, defined as a coverage decision for a given disorder in a specific country. Decision processes were compared by whether the decision was accompanied by the publication of an HTA report. To test differences, nonparametric statistical tests were used.

Results: The decision steps of trigger, participation and publication differed between the HTA and the non-HTA groups. No clear association between HTA and assessment methods in coverage decision making was identified.

Conclusions: It appeared that there is an association between HTA and coverage decision processes that are more explicit, inclusive, and transparent. It is unclear whether HTA is associated with formal evidence reviews and economic evaluations.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.AH Anis , T Rahman , MT Schechter . Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119126.

2.M Barbieri , N Hawkins , M Sculpher . Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. 2009;12:193201.

3.B Bührlen . Innovation in health care: The role of HTA in the introduction of new technologies. [German] Innovation im Gesundheitswesen: Die Rolle von HTA bei der Einführung neuer Technologien. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh Wesen. 2010;104:703708.

4.P Carlsson . Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:4454.

5.N Daniels , J Sabin . The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17:5064.

9.SD Grosse , RS Olney , MA Baily . The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: A critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:239247.

10.SD Grosse , WH Rogowski , LF Ross , Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: Evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:106115.

11.S Hanney , M Buxton , C Green , D Coulson , J. Raftery An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1180.

12.S Hartz , J John . Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy. 2009;89:184192.

15.B Jonsson . Economic evaluation of medical technologies in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:597604.

16.MA Koopmanschap , EA Stolk , X Koolman . Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:198204.

17.AR Levy , C Mitton , KM Johnston , B Harrigan , AH. Briggs International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:813830.

18.D Menon , T Stafinski . Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:7589.

20.W Oortwijn , J Mathijssen , D Banta . The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:174184.

21.C Packer , S Simpson , A Stevens . International diffusion of new health technologies: A ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:419428.

22.A Pandor , J Eastham , C Beverley , J Chilcott , S Paisley . Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii, 1121.

23.WH Rogowski , SC Hartz , JH John . Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.

24.R Schwarzer , U Siebert . 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;25:305314.

28.Garrido M Velasco , A Gerhardus , JA Røttingen , R Busse . Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196202.

29.L Vuorenkoski , H Toiviainen , E Hemminki . Decision-making in priority setting for medicines–A review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86:19.

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: