Any new technology that promises significant costs as well as potential benefits generates considerable interest. Such innovations bring into bold relief the fundamental problem of achieving maximal medical benefits while efficiently and equitably allocating scarce resources (II). Two tools that decision makers can use to assess the benefits and costs of implementing new technologies are cost- benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). One technology that seems especially appropriate for the application of CBA and CEA is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging.

Healthcare innovations often represent important improvements in population welfare, but at what cost, and to whom? Health technology assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process to inform resource allocation. HTA is conventionally anchored on health maximization as the only relevant output of health services. If we accept the proposition that health technologies can generate value outside the healthcare system, resource allocation decisions could be suboptimal from a societal perspective. Incorporating “broader value” in HTA as derived from social values and patient experience could provide a richer evaluative space for informing resource allocation decisions. This article considers how HTA is practiced and what its current context implies for adopting “broader value” to evaluating health technologies. Methodological challenges are highlighted, as is a future research agenda. Ireland serves as an example of a healthcare system that both has an explicit role for HTA and is evolving under a current program of reform to offer universal, single-tier access to public services. There are various ways in which HTA processes could move beyond health, including considering the processes of care delivery and/or expanding the evaluative space to some broader concept of well-being. Methods to facilitate the latter exist, but their adaptation to HTA is still emerging. We recommend a multi-stakeholder working group to develop and advance an international agenda for HTA that captures welfare/benefit beyond health.

Age-specific (<50, 50–69 years) 10-year survival proportions in four European trials for node-negative, Stage I and II breast cancer patients differ significantly. These patients, identified as having the same stage as localized-breast cancer patients in the End Results Registry of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, had pooled survival proportions for the two age groups (0.713, 0.579) close to those of the registry (0.713, 0.607).

As part of a restructuring program at a large, acute care hospital, a new, collaborative form of clinical management called triads has been initiated. Members of these collaborative management teams are being collectively empowered to better enable them to establish a continuously improving, cost-effective clinical service. This article describes the impact of this new structure on the capital budgeting process in changing a centralized, committee-based system of decision making with limited clinical nursing input to one that is increasingly decentralized, interdisciplinary, and focused on patients.

The treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) represents a victory for medical technology. Dialysis and kidney transplantation, developed in the early 1960s, offer alternative treatments to patients whose own kidneys no longer function; before, these patients faced a terminal diagnosis. Dialysis is a mechanical treatment in which the patient is connected to a machine that cleanses the blood of impurities and returns it to the body. Although recent innovations (e.g., continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis—CAPD) facilitate patient independence from a machine, replacement of the diseased kidneys is the most desirable and least expensive treatment for many patients (33;39). Kidney transplantation remains the most effective and common type of transplantation, and a new kidney (from a living-related or cadaver donor) often dramatically improves the recipient's health and general well-being (20;39). Now, in the mid-1980s, these technologies are no longer new and innovative. Further analysis of these established but costly technologies provides a perspective on the long-range implications of innovations in patient care: while some new issues have emerged, many problems originally associated with these treatments seem to have intensified. Access to treatment remains a central issue, closely linked to the dilemma of equity versus cost. The contrast in the access provided by the United States and Great Britain is dramatic (40); in 1982, the rate of ESRD treatment within the U.S. was twice that of the U.K. (353 versus 160 patients per million) (37). The U.S. policy is basically one of unlimited access, whereas the U.K. has restricted access.

Total joint replacement has restored function and provided comfort to many patients who would otherwise have suffered. However, success and widespread diffusion of this procedure pose a number of important questions. The patient's and the doctor's criteria of success may not be the same: Which are to be used? Health resources are becoming limited: Should money be spent to restore function and for pain relief to those late in life or past their work life? Who makes this choice? A medical technology is tested in the best of settings but routinely practiced in many: How should society and health care professionals monitor the results of surgery? Who should do surgery and where should it be done?

In Brazil, there is no consensus on the concept of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA). There is great variability in the existing models and difficulty in evaluating their results—whether in respect of clinical decisions, quality of care, and hospital policy and management or in respect of optimizing the use of resources. This study aims to discuss the experiences of HB-HTA, its integration into the regulatory system for the adoption of new technologies into the Brazilian public (SUS) (Unified Health System), and its main challenges. During a workshop, a panel of specialists in HTA and/or HB-HTA was formed, representative of four different perspectives: (i) Health services and health technology assessment units, (ii) Academia, (iii) Secretary of State for Health, and (iv) the Federal SUS sector. This was followed by discussion, a preliminary consensus, contributions from the audience, a plenary session, and a final consensus. HB-HTA is not institutionalized, nor is it part of the regulation system for the adoption of new technologies in the SUS. The main challenges are the difficulties in creating qualified teams, financial support, and sustainability. The work of these bodies in respect of the evaluation of new technologies deserves further studies analyzing the relationship between the pressure for adoption from the hospital team and industry professionals and legal rulings. It is necessary to strengthen HB-HTA culture and implement this policy in hospital management, making assessment bodies a part of managerial and decision-making processes in hospitals, and develop regional collaborative networks and a national network of HTA.

Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to study the effect of general practitioners' (GP's) characteristics on two decisions: whether to have the Helicobacter pylori rapid test (HPRT) in the office laboratory and whether to use this test or a similar hospital-based serological test in a typical clinical situation described in a vignette.

Methods: Discrete choice analysis with binary logit models were used to predict the probability that a general practice has the HPRT, as well as the GP's probability of using the HPRT or a similar test in this clinical situation.

Results: We found that the number of consultations per week has a positive effect on the probability of having the HPRT, indicating that the size of the practice affects the decision to have such a test in the repertoire. Furthermore, four variables significantly increased the probability of using one of the lab tests: more if located in urban practices, more by solo practitioners, more when the GP stated a high probability for H. pylori associated disease, and more when the GP had the rapid test available in the practice. In our analysis, the remuneration system is endogenous and does not have a significant effect on the two decisions.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that characteristics of the GP affect the availability and use of a specific laboratory analysis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to propose a statistical model that takes into account clinical data on earlier versions when evaluating the latest version of an implantable medical device (IMD).

Methods: We compared the performances of a Bayesian three-level hierarchical meta-analysis model with those of a Bayesian random-effects model through a simulation study. Posterior mean estimates of the success rate for each IMD version were computed as well as the probability that the latest version improved in effectiveness. Models were compared using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC), the estimated bias and the standard deviation of the mean success rates. Sensitivity analyses to the choice of the priors were performed. These methods were applied to the evaluation of an intracranial stent used to treat wide-necked aneurysms.

Results: When IMD versions did not differ in effectiveness, the best-fitting model was the random-effects model. By contrast, when there was a version effect, the hierarchical model was selected in more than 95 percent of the cases. It provided precise estimations of success rates of each IMD version and allowed detecting an improvement in effectiveness of the latest version, with a low influence of the choice of the priors. No evidence of benefit from the latest version of the intracranial stent was found.

Conclusions: In the setting of IMD assessment, comparison of DIC between the two proposed models appeared useful for detecting version effects. In that case, Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis model may help the decision maker by providing useful information on the latest version of IMD compared with the previous versions.

Objectives: In 2003, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) advised that liquid based cytology (LBC) should be adopted for cervical screening in England. The aim of this study was to explore the cost implications of implementing the NICE guidance in cytology laboratories. The ThinPrep® technology was used as the case study.

Methods: An optimization model was developed to analyze options for leasing alternative LBC processing machines with different capacities. Variables entered in the model included: the cost of the contract with the supplier, the laboratory labor cost, and inter-laboratory transport costs. All costs referred to the 2005–06 financial year. A simulation program calculated mileages within laboratory networks. Alternative strategies for contracting by laboratories acting independently and by Quality Assessment Regional Centres (QARC) were analyzed.

Results: Centralizing the processing of specimens in “hub and spoke” laboratory networks was the least costly strategy. Total annual costs for England using existing transport links were £14,807,000 for 5-year contracts. If all laboratories installed processors, the annual cost for 5-year contracts placed by QARCs was £14,941,000 compared with £16,359,000 if the laboratories placed their own contracts. Three-year contracts averaged an additional £1 million: £15,912,000 for networks and £17,304,000 for independent laboratory contracts.

Conclusions: Deciding on the mode of implementation of a NICE guidance can be challenging for decision makers. These cost minimization appraisal techniques are equally applicable to national screening programs in general and to other health technologies for which there are significant cost implications associated with innovative policy directives.

The double burden of communicable and noncommunicable diseases is a major threat to the Indian public health system. AYUSH, an acronym for Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy, represents the Indian system of medicine recognized by the Government of India. Mainstreaming of AYUSH is one of the key strategies of the Indian government for tackling increasing disease burden through initiatives such as AYUSH wellness centers, telemedicine, and quality control measures for medications in the AYUSH system of medicine. Such investment of resources in health systems may require economic evaluations. However, such evaluations are lacking in the AYUSH system, except for a few in homeopathy and yoga. In the absence of evidence from economic evaluations, researchers and decision makers are guided mostly by clinical efficacy while formulating healthcare strategies. In view of the increasing use of AYUSH across the country, economic evaluations of the AYUSH system are the need of the hour to aid healthcare decision making.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to implement a set of indicators to assess the quality of care of a new healthcare model for prevention of colorectal cancer in a high-risk population.

Methods: Information was obtained retrospectively from electronic clinical records, review of documentation, and a survey. The high-risk clinic for colorectal cancer was created in Barcelona (Spain) in 2006. All users at greater risk of colorectal cancer assessed through the new healthcare model were included. Twenty-one indicators were computed using defined formulas and standards. Logistic regression models were computed to analyze factors related to adherence to the screening and surveillance prevention strategies.

Results: A total of 1,275 users were included. Eight of seventeen indicators reached the quality standard (80 percent structure, 50 percent process, and 17 percent outcome), whereas four indicators did not have a previously defined standard. The overall adherence to the screening and surveillance program was 67 percent. Users aged 59 and older had almost two times greater probabiblity (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.3–3.1) of adherence than younger users; users with surveillance colonoscopies presented a 7.4 times (95 percent CI, 4.6–11.7) greater probability of adherence than those with screening colonoscopies.

Conclusions: The indicators have been shown to be feasible and valid tools to identify areas of improvement in this new model, such as information systems, continuity of care, and communication among professionals. Because this was the first time these indicators were applied to assess the high-risk clinic for colorectal cancer, further implementation is required to improve the interpretability of results.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter by Gibson and Little. The authors raise several points that require a response. First, they claim that we inaccurately characterized the DERP/Washington State Medicaid agency, and did not appreciate that the DERP and the Washington State Medicaid agency have different missions. On the contrary, however, we fully recognized that DERP's mission is to conduct systematic reviews and not to make recommendations, whereas Washington State uses the reviews in making recommendations for their Medicaid enrollees. We specifically noted in the study that “Washington Medicaid is one of fourteen participants in the DERP. DERP researchers conduct health technology assessments for drug classes. Participants in the DERP, such as the Washington Medicaid program, retain local authority for interpreting DERP reports and for decision making regarding which drugs to pay for.” We chose to analyze DERP/Washington State as a single entity for our exercise because we were interested in analyzing the link between the HTA conducted and the decisions that follow them.