Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-09T14:26:05.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2004

Adam Oliver ,
Elias Mossialos  and
Ray Robinson
Adam Oliver
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Elias Mossialos
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Ray Robinson
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we review the development of health technology assessment (HTA) in England and Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Sweden, and we summarize the reaction to these developments from a variety of different disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives (political science, sociology, economics, ethics, public health, general practice, clinical medicine, patients, and the pharmaceutical industry). We conclude that translating HTA into policy is a highly complex business and that, despite the growth of HTA over the past two decades, its influence on policy making, and its perceived relevance for people from a broad range of different perspectives, remains marginal.

Keywords

EnglandWalesFranceThe NetherlandsSwedenHealth technology assessmentPriority setting
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Banta D, Oortwijn W. 2000 Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 626– 635.Google Scholar
Banta D, Behney C, Andrulis D. 1978 Assessing medical technologies. Bull N Y Acad Med. 54: 113– 123.Google Scholar
Bos M, Carlsson P, van der Kooij S, et al. 1996 Technology assessment and coverage policy: The case of invasive cardiology therapy in five European countries. Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment.
Coulter A, Ham C, eds. 2000 The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press;
Daniels N. 1981 Health care needs and distributive justice. Philos Public Aff. 10: 146– 179.Google Scholar
Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. 1997 The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy. 40: 199– 215.Google Scholar
Ham C, Robert G. 2003 Reasonable rationing. International experience of priority setting in health care. Buckingham: Open University Press;
Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. 1997 Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 144– 185.Google Scholar
Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. 1996 Managing scarcity. Priority setting and rationing in the NHS. Buckingham: Open University Press;
Maynard A. 1996 Evidence based medicine. Cost effectiveness and equity are ignored. BMJ. 313: 170– 171.Google Scholar
McDaid D, Cookson R, Maynard A, Sassi F. 2003 Evaluating health interventions in the 21st century: Old and new challenges. Health Policy. 63: 117– 120.Google Scholar
New B. 1996 The rationing agenda in the NHS. BMJ. 312: 1593– 1601.Google Scholar
Nord E. 1999 Cost-value analysis in health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1994 Identifying healthcare technologies that work. Searching for the evidence. OTA-H-6808. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office;
Werko L, Banta D. 1995 Report from the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 11: 797– 799.Google Scholar