Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF “DISINVESTMENT”

  • Chris Henshall (a1), Tara Schuller (a2) and Logan Mardhani-Bayne (a2)
Abstract

Background: Health systems face rising patient expectations and economic pressures; decision makers seek to enhance efficiency to improve access to appropriate care. There is international interest in the role of HTA to support decisions to optimize use of established technologies, particularly in “disinvesting” from low-benefit uses.

Methods: This study summarizes main points from an HTAi Policy Forum meeting on this topic, drawing on presentations, discussions among attendees, and an advance background paper.

Results and Conclusions: Optimization involves assessment or re-assessment of a technology, a decision on optimal use, and decision implementation. This may occur within a routine process to improve safety and quality and create “headroom” for new technologies, or ad hoc in response to financial constraints. The term “disinvestment” is not always helpful in describing these processes. HTA contributes to optimization, but there is scope to increase its role in many systems. Stakeholders may have strong views on access to technology, and stakeholder involvement is essential. Optimization faces challenges including loss aversion and entitlement, stakeholder inertia and entrenchment, heterogeneity in patient outcomes, and the need to demonstrate convincingly absence of benefit. While basic HTA principles remain applicable, methodological developments are needed better to support optimization. These include mechanisms for candidate technology identification and prioritization, enhanced collection and analysis of routine data, and clinician engagement. To maximize value to decision makers, HTA should consider implementation strategies and barriers. Improving optimization processes calls for a coordinated approach, and actions are identified for system leaders, HTA and other health organizations, and industry.

  • 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.

      USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF “DISINVESTMENT”
      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.

      USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF “DISINVESTMENT”
      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.

      USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF “DISINVESTMENT”
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al.Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361422.
2.Centre for Health Economics Research and Education. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. CHERE Report for NSW Treasury. 2010. Working Paper 2010/5. http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2010_5.pdf (accessed January 15, 2012).
3.Elshaug A, Hiller J, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23.
4.Elshaug A, Hiller JE, Moss JR. Exploring policy makers' perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:19.
5.Elshaug A, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, et al.Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190:269273.
6.Galician Agency for HTA. Avalia-T. PriTec tool for obsolete heath technologies. http://pritectools.es/Controlador/documentosAction.php (accessed January 28, 2012).
7.Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519.
8.Gerdvilaite J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvestment. Overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. HTA-Projektbericht 57, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut; 2011.
9.Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). http://www.htai.org (accessed February 2012).
10.Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). Policy forum. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=643 (accessed February 2012).
11.Henshall C. The HTAi Policy Forum: Promoting public-private sector dialogue on the development and use of HTA in health system decision making. Michael Q. 2012;9:157164.
12.HTAi Secretariat and Policy Forum Committee. HTAi Policy Forum Meeting 2012: HTA and Disinvestment: Harnessing HTA to reduce lower value or ineffective uses of health technologies. Background Paper. January 2012. http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Policy_Forum_Public/HTAi_Policy_Forum_2012_Background_Paper.pdf (accessed February 2012).
13.Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J, et al.Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: Possible sources for their identification. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:249254.
14.Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J. 2009. Report on the development of the GuNFT Guideline. Guideline for Not Funding existing health Technologies in health care systems. Quality Plan for the NHS of the MHSP. Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba). Health Technology Assessment Reports: OSTEBA N° 2007/11. http://www9.euskadi.net/sanidad/osteba/datos/e_10_11_report_GuNFT.pdf (accessed November 18, 2011).
15.Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, eds. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000:1743. (reprinted from Econometrica 47; 2. 1979;263-291).
16.Kahneman D. Prospect theory. In: Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Krause, and Giroux; 2011:278288.
17.Klemp M, Frønsdal KB, Facey K. What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:7783.
18.Kristenden FB, Sigmund H, eds. Health Technology Assessment Handbook. 2nd ed.Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007. http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2008/MTV/Metode/HTA_Handbook_net_final.pdf (accessed February 23, 2012).
19.McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D. Banff AED Summit. Access with evidence development schemes: A framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:143152.
20.Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, et al.Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based Resource Allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.
21.Mørland B. Using HTAs to support disinvestment – the case of sleep apnoea (OSAS) in Norway. Power Point presentation from the 27th Conference of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2010.
22.Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:24772481.
23.Ruano Raviña A, Velasco González M, Varela Lema L, et al. 2007. Identification, prioritisation and assessment of obsolete health technologies. A methodological guideline Quality Plan for the National Health System. Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Avalia-T. http://www.sergas.es/docs/Avalia-t/ObsoleteTechMemFinal.pdf (accessed November 18, 2011).
24.Wulff KC, Miller FG, Pearson SD. Can coverage be rescinded when negative trial results threaten a popular procedure? The ongoing saga of vertebroplasty. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:22692276.
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:

Type Description Title
EXCEL
Supplementary Materials

Henshall et al, supplementary material
Tables

 Excel (31 KB)
31 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 171 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 290 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.