Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:12:46.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAN WE RELIABLY BENCHMARK HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATIONS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2012

Michael Drummond ,
Peter Neumann ,
Bengt Jönsson ,
Bryan Luce ,
J. Sanford Schwartz ,
Uwe Siebert  and
Sean D. Sullivan
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York email: mike.drummond@york.ac.uk
Peter Neumann
Affiliation:
Tufts Medical Center
Bengt Jönsson
Affiliation:
Stockholm School of Economics
Bryan Luce
Affiliation:
United BioSource Corporation
J. Sanford Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Uwe Siebert
Affiliation:
University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology
Sean D. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In recent years, there has been growth in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for making decisions about the reimbursement, coverage, or guidance on the use of health technologies. Given this greater emphasis on the use of HTA, it is important to develop standards of good practice and to benchmark the various HTA organizations against these standards.

Methods: This study discusses the conceptual and methodological challenges associated with benchmarking HTA organizations and proposes a series of audit questions based on a previously published set of principles of good practice.

Results and Conclusions: It is concluded that a benchmarking exercise would be feasible and useful, although the question of who should do the benchmarking requires further discussion. Key issues for further research are the alternative methods for weighting the various principles and for generating an overall score, or summary statement of adherence to the principles. Any weighting system, if developed, would need to be explored in different jurisdictions to assess the extent to which the relative importance of the principles is perceived to vary. Finally, the development and precise wording of the audit questions requires further study, with a view to making the questions as unambiguous as possible, and the reproducibility of the assessments as high as possible.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenessHealth policyAudit
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 159 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Banta, HD. Commentary on the article ‘Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.’ Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bridges, JP, Hauber, B, Marshall, D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health: A checklist. A report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–413.Google Scholar
3.Busse, FR, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Carlsson, P., Alwin, J, Brodtkorb, T-H, et al. Nationellt system förutvärdering, prioriteringochinförandebeslutavicke-farmacologiskas-jukvårdsteknologier – en förstudie.CMT Report 2010:1; Linköpings University, Linköping; 2010.Google Scholar
5.Chiou, C-F, Hay, JW, Wallace, JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41:32–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Claxton, K, Walker, S, Palmer, S, Sculpher, M. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions. CHE Research Paper. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2010.Google Scholar
7.CMR International Institute for Regulatory Science. Agenda 2010. Expediting patients’ access to new therapies. London: CMR International; 2010.Google Scholar
8.Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, Luce, BR, Neumann, PJ. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008; 24:244–258.Google Scholar
9.EUnetHTA Joint Action. www.eunethta.org (accessed October 26, 2011).Google Scholar
10.Gibson, JM, Little, A. Evaluating HTA principles. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26:428–429.Google Scholar
11.Hailey, D. Commentary on the article ‘Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions’. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:365–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Johannesson, M, Jönsson, B, Jönsson, L, Kobelt, G, Zethras, N. Why should economic evaluations of medical innovations have a societal perspective? OHE Occasional Paper. London: Office of Health Economics; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Kaplan, RP, Norton, DP. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Tampa, FL: Harvard Business Review; 1996. January-February, 75–85.Google Scholar
14.NCQA. About NCQA. http://www.ncqa.org/ (accessed May 13, 2011).Google Scholar
15.Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, et al. Evaluating HTA principles. Letter to the Editor. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:429–430.Google Scholar
17.Neumann, PJ, Kamae, MS, Palmer, JA. Medicare's national coverage decisions for technologies, 1999-2007. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1620–1631.Google Scholar
18.Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, Rubinstein, A, et al. Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: Are key principles relevant for Latin America? Int. J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:421–427.Google Scholar
19.Qualitymetric. The SF-36v2 health survey. www.qualitymetric.com (accessed October 31, 2011).Google Scholar
20.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;25:305–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Scottish Medicines Consortium. Submission process. Scottish Medicines Consortium. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/ (accessed May 13, 2011).Google Scholar