Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 35-43

  Berg, Marc ^a   Van Der Grinten, Tom ^a   Klazinga, Niek ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA); MEDICAL COMMUNITY; NETHERLANDS;

HEALTH CARE;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW;

EID: 2442684100     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462304000765     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. AGREE Collaboration. The AGREE Collaborative Guideline development in Europe. An international comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1039-1049.
2. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Quality Safety Health Care. 2002. In press.
3. Ashmore M, Mulkay M, Pinch T. Health and efficiency: A sociology of health economics. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1989.
4. Bates DW, Pappius E, Kuperman GJ, et al. Using information systems to measure and improve quality. Int J Med Informatics. 1999;53:115-124.
5. Berg M, ter Meulen RHJ, van den Burg M. Guidelines for appropriate care: The importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Analysis. 2001;9:77-99.
6. Berwick DM. The NHS's 50 anniversary. Looking forward. The NHS: Feeling well and thriving at 75. BMJ. 1998;317:57-61.
7. Boer A. Assessment and regulation of health care technology. The Dutch experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:638-648.
8. Burger, & al e. xxtitle from Niek. 2002.
9. Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in health care. Rijswijk: Ministry of Welfare, Health, and Cultural Affairs; 1992.
10. Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press; 2000.
11. Elsinga E, Rutten FFH. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: The case of The Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:605-620.
12. Grimshaw J, Freemantle N, Wallace S, et al. Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1995;4:55-64.
13. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997;315:418-421.
14. Grol R, Grimshaw J. Evidence-based implementation of evidence-based medicine. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999;25: 503-513.
15. Health Council of The Netherlands. Medisch handelen op een tweesprong (Medical treatment at the crossroads) [in Dutch]. The Hague: Health Council of The Netherlands; 1991.
16. Health Council of The Netherlands. From implementation to learning: The importance of a two-way dialogue between practice and science in health care [in Dutch]. The Hague: Health Council of The Netherlands; 2000.
17. Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: The second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;317:1000-1002.
18. Hunter DJ. Desparately seeking solutions. Rationing health care. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd; 1997.
19. Keynote address. Second international conference on priorities in health care; 1998; London.
20. Klazinga NS. Compliance with practice guidelines: Clinical autonomy revisited. Health Policy. 1994;28:51-66.
21. Klazinga NS. Sociale geneeskunde: de derde weg. Oratie Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP; 2000.
22. Klein R. Puzzling out priorities. Why we must acknowledge that rationing is a political process. BMJ. 1998;317: 959-960.
23. Latour B. Socrates' and Callicles' settlement-or, the invention of the impossible body politic. Configurations. 1997;5: 189-240.
24. Mulder JH. Terug naar de zorg. Dunning gekanteld. Medisch Contact. 1997;39:1219-1220.
25. Mulder JH. Healthcare rationing in The Netherlands: The need for specific guidelines. Med J Aust. 2000;172:329-331.
26. Neeling. Eindrapport Passende Medische Zorg. Utrecht: KNMG; 1999.
27. Oortwijn WJ. First things first. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Amsterdam: Free University; 2000.
28. Porter TM. Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1995.
29. Rutten F. heb ik niet xx. 2000.
30. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV, Caffa M, Meuleman EJH, Rutten FFH. Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ. 2000;320:1165.
31. Van der Grinten TED. Scope for policy: Essence, operation and reform of the policy of Dutch health care. In: Gunning-Schepers LJ, et al, eds. Fundamental questions about the future of health care. The Hague: Sdu; 1996.
32. Van der Grinten TED. XX Heb ik niet. 2002.
33. van Hout B, Goes ES, Grijseels EWM, Quarles van Ufford MA. Economic evaluation in the field of cardiology: Theory and practice. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1999;42:167-173.
34. van Rossum W. Decision-making and medical technology assessment: Three Dutch cases. Knowledge Policy. 1991;4:107-124.
35. Weggeman M. Kennismanagement: Inrichting en besturing van kennisintensieve organisaties. Schiedam: Scriptum; 1997.