Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 159-165

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Neumann, Peter ^b   Jönsson, Bengt ^c   Luce, Bryan ^d   Schwartz, J Sanford ^e   Siebert, Uwe ^f   Sullivan, Sean D ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^d United BioSource Corporation   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit; Cost effectiveness; Health policy

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE METHODS; AUDIT; GOOD PRACTICES; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MAKING DECISION; REPRODUCIBILITIES; WEIGHTING SYSTEMS;

BENCHMARKING; MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; QUALITY CONTROL;

BENCHMARKING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84860771440     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000098     Document Type: Article

References (21)

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. (Pubitemid 351950174)
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.
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. (Pubitemid 34533752)
4. Carlsson P., Alwin J, Brodtkorb T-H, et al. Nationellt system foärutvaärdering, prioriteringochinfoärandebeslutavicke- farmacologiskasjukv̊ ardsteknologier - en foärstudie.CMT Report 2010:1; Linkoäpings University, Linkoäping; 2010.
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.
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.
7. CMR International Institute for Regulatory Science. Agenda 2010. Expediting patients' access to new therapies. London: CMR International; 2010.
8. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Joänsson 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. (Pubitemid 351950160)
9. EUnetHTA Joint Action. www.eunethta.org (accessed October 26, 2011).
10. Gibson JM, Little A. Evaluating HTA principles. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26:428-429.
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. (Pubitemid 351950175)
12. Johannesson M, Joänsson B, Joänsson 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.
13. Kaplan RP, Norton DP. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Tampa, FL: Harvard Business Review; 1996. January- February, 75-85.
14. NCQA. About NCQA. http://www.ncqa.org/ (accessed May 13, 2011).
15. Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Joänsson 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.
16. Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Joänsson B, et al. Evaluating HTA principles. Letter to the Editor. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:429-430.
17. Neumann PJ, Kamae MS, Palmer JA. Medicare's national coverage decisions for technologies, 1999-2007. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1620-1631.
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.
19. Qualitymetric. The SF-36v2 health survey. www.qualitymetric.com (accessed October 31, 2011).
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.
21. ScottishMedicines Consortium. Submission process. ScottishMedicines Consortium. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/ (accessed May 13, 2011).