Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:45:51.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DISINVESTMENT WORLDWIDE: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE DETERMINANTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2017

Massimiliano Orso ,
Chiara de Waure ,
Iosief Abraha ,
Carlo Nicastro ,
Francesco Cozzolino ,
Paolo Eusebi  and
Alessandro Montedori
Massimiliano Orso
Affiliation:
Health Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Department of Epidemiologymassi.orso@hotmail.it
Chiara de Waure
Affiliation:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Institute of Public Health
Iosief Abraha
Affiliation:
Health Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Department of Epidemiology
Carlo Nicastro
Affiliation:
Perugia Hospital Trust, Directorate Purchasing and Procurement
Francesco Cozzolino
Affiliation:
Health Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Department of Epidemiology
Paolo Eusebi
Affiliation:
Health Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Department of Epidemiology
Alessandro Montedori
Affiliation:
Health Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Department of Epidemiology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in health technology disinvestment. A disinvestment process should involve all relevant stakeholders to identify and deliver the most effective, safe, and cost-effective healthcare interventions. The aim of the present study was to describe the state of the art of health technology disinvestment around the world and to identify parameters that could be associated with the implementation of disinvestment programs.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed from database inception to November 2014, together with the collection of original data on socio-economic indicators from forty countries.

Results: Overall, 1,456 records (1,199 from electronic databases and 257 from other sources) were initially retrieved. After analyzing 172 full text articles, 38 papers describing fifteen disinvestment programs/experiences in eight countries were included. The majority (12/15) of disinvestment programs began after 2006. As expected, these programs were more common in developed countries, 63 percent of which had a Beveridge model healthcare system. The univariate analysis showed that countries with disinvestment programs had a significantly higher level of Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product per capita, public expenditure on health and social services, life expectancy at birth and a lower level of infant mortality rate, and of perceived corruption. The existence of HTA agencies in the country was a strong predictor (p = .034) for the development of disinvestment programs.

Conclusions: The most significant variables in the univariate analysis were connected by a common factor, potentially related to the overall development stage of the country.

Keywords

DisinvestmentTechnology assessmentObsolescenceObsolete technologyOverview
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , 2017 , pp. 239 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Ruano Ravina, A, Velasco Gonzalez, M, Varela Lema, L, Cerda Mota, T, Ibargoyen Roteta, N, Gutierrez Ibarluzea, I. Identification, prioritisation and assessment of obsolete health technologies. A methodological guideline. Santiago de ComPostela: Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T). 2009.Google Scholar
2. Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gelijns, A, Rosenberg, N. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994;13:28–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Reiser, S. Criteria for standard versus experimental therapy. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994;13:127–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Goodman, C. HTA 101: Introduction to health technology assessment. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine; 2014.Google Scholar
6. Gallego, G, Haas, M, Hall, J, Viney, R. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. CHERE Working Paper 2010/5. 2010.Google Scholar
7. Gerdvilaite, J, , Nachtnebel A. Disinvestment. Overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries (Structured abstract). Health Technology Assessment Database [Internet]. 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clhta/articles/HTA-32011001040/frame.html (accessed November 18, 2014).Google Scholar
8. Leggett, L, Noseworthy, TW, Zarrabi, M, Lorenzetti, D, Sutherland, LR, Clement, FM. Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: Current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Mayer, J, Nachtnebel, A. Identifikation ineffektiver interventionen und technologien. Modelle und deren umsetzung [Identifying ineffective interventions and health technologies: Models and their implementation]. HTA-Projektbericht Nr.: 68; 2013. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2013.Google Scholar
10. Polisena, J, Clifford, T, Elshaug, AG, Mitton, C, Russell, E, Skidmore, B. Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. CADTH. Grey Matters: A practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters (accessed December 15, 2015). 2015.Google Scholar
12. OECD. Society at a Glance 2014: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2014-en (accessed November 18, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. IBGE. BRICS: Joint statistical publication: 2014; Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa / Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2014.Google Scholar
14. UNDP. Human development report 2014. Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerability and building resilience. Published for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2014.Google Scholar
15. Or, Z, Cases, C, Lisac, M, Vrangbaek, K, Winblad, U, Bevan, G. Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5:269–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Watt, AM, Hiller, JE, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Elshaug, AG, Moss, JR, Littlejohns, P, Karnon, J, Merlin, TL, Hiller, JE. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190:269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, Moss, JR. Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Elshaug, AG, Watt, AM, Mundy, L, Willis, CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: An Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197:556–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. ANZAPNM. Development of a quality framework for the Medicare Benefits Schedule: Discussion paper. Australian and New Zealand Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine Department of Health (Australia). 2010.Google Scholar
21. Mitton, C, Patten, S, Donaldson, C. Listening to the decision makers: Sustainability of PBMA in Alberta. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Mitton, C, Patten, S, Waldner, H, Donaldson, C. Priority setting in health authorities: A novel approach to a historical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:1653–1663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Mitton, C, Dionne, F, Damji, R, Campbell, D, Bryan, S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Levin, L. Disinvestment strategies based on evidence guided adoption and evidence guided adoption and obsolescence of technologies: The Ontario Experience. http://wwwcfhi-fcassca/Libraries/CEO_Forum_files/LevinENGsflbashx (accessed November 18, 2014).Google Scholar
25. ARSS. Definizione dei criteri per l'appropriatezza allocativa delle apparecchiature di imaging clinico ARSS Regione del Veneto. 2009;Qn.15Google Scholar
26. Oortwijn, W, Banta, D, Vondeling, H, Bouter, L. Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Actors and activities. Health Policy. 1999;47:241–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, Bouter, L. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Boer, A. Assessment and regulation of health care technology - The Dutch experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:638– 648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Garcia-Armesto, S, Campillo-Artero, C, Bernal-Delgado, E. Disinvestment in the age of cost-cutting sound and fury. Tools for the Spanish National Health System. Health Policy. 2013;110: 180–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Ibargoyen-Roteta, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Asua, J. Report on the development of the GuNFT Guideline. Guideline for Not Funding existing health Technologies in health care systems. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment. Osteba, N° 2007/11; 2009.Google Scholar
31. Ibargoyen-Roteta, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Asua, J, Benguria-Arrate, G, Galnares-Cordero, L. Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: Possible sources for their identification. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Ibargoyen-Roteta, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Asua, J. Guiding the process of health technology disinvestment. Health Policy. 2010;98:218– 226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Hollingworth, W, Chamberlain, C. NICE recommendations for disinvestment. BMJ. 2011;343:d5772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Devlin, N, Parkin, D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Buxton, MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1133–1142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Culyer, A, McCabe, C, Briggs, A, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: The role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Pearson, S, Littlejohns, P. Reallocating resources: How should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:160–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Walker, S, Palmer, S, Sculpher, M. The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing. Br Med Bull. 2007;81–82:51–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. McCabe, C, Claxton, K, Culyer, AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Chalkidou, K. Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009;59:1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
41. Garner, S, Littlejohns, P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Docherty, M, Garner, S, Littlejohns, P, Clarke, M. Using evidence to stop ineffective practice: The UK Cochrane Centre (UKCC) and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) work together. Oral presentation at the 19th Cochrane Colloquium; 2011 Oct 19–22; Madrid, Spain [abstract]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Supplement [Internet]. 2011; (Cd000003):[3 p.]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcmr/articles/CMR-16484/frame.html (accessed November 18, 2014).Google Scholar
43. Bain, M, Ward, H, Belfer, S. Disinvestment: Can you afford not to cut it? Health Serv J. 2012;122:20–22.Google ScholarPubMed
44. Gericke, C, Garner, S, Meyer, F. The implementation of disinvestment initiatives: A European perspective on progress to-date. Workshop presentation at ISPOR 15th Annual European Congress, November 2012. Workshop presentation at ISPOR 15th Annual European Congress, November 2012.Google Scholar
45. Garner, S, Docherty, M, Somner, J, et al. Reducing ineffective practice: Challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18:6–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Airoldi, M. Disinvestments in practice: Overcoming resistance to change through a sociotechnical approach with local stakeholders. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:1149–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Robinson, S, Dickinson, H, Freeman, T, Rumbold, B, Williams, I. Structures and processes for priority-setting by health-care funders: A national survey of primary care trusts in England. Health Serv Manage Res. 2012;25:113–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Robinson, S, Williams, I, Dickinson, H, Freeman, T, Rumbold, B. Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:2386–2393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. GSWG. The “top 5” lists in primary care: Meeting the responsibility of professionalism. Good Stewardship Working Group. 2011;171:1385–1390.Google Scholar
50. Cassel, CK, Guest, JA. Choosing wisely: Helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307: 1801–1802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Cohen, D. Marginal analysis in practice: An alternative to needs assessment for contracting health care. Br Med J. 1994;309: 781–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Jonsson, E. History of health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):42–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Parkinson, B, Sermet, C, Clement, F, et al. Disinvestment and value-based purchasing strategies for pharmaceuticals: An international review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:905–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 38.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Table S1

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 13.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Table S2

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 28.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Table S3

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 19.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Table S4

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 14 KB
Supplementary material: File

Orso supplementary material

Table S5

Download Orso supplementary material(File)
File 14.6 KB