DISINVESTING from INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED from CURRENT PROGRAMS

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 355-362

  Mayer, Julia ^a   Nachtnebel, Anna ^a  

^a LUDWIG BOLTZMANN INSTITUTE FOR LUNG VASCULAR RESEARCH   (Austria)

Author keywords

Disinvestment; Health technology reassessment; Ineffective technologies; Obsolescence; Resource allocation

Indexed keywords

COST REDUCTION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; INVESTMENTS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

DISINVESTMENT; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS; LITERATURE SEARCH; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT; SUPPORT PROGRAMS; TRANSPARENT PROCESS;

OBSOLESCENCE;

ARTICLE; COST CONTROL; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; POLITICAL PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COST CONTROL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84960803314     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000641     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, Gallego G. Breaking up is hard to do: Why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36:148-152.
2. Joshi NP, Stahnish FW, Noseworth TW. Reassessment of health technologies: Obsolescence and waste. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2009.
3. Center forClinical Effectiveness. Health technology disinvestment: Tests, drugs and clinical practice. Report on a national disinvestmentworkshop. Melbourne, Australia: Center for Clinical Effectiveness; 2009.
4. Mc Kean G, Noseworthy T, Elshaug A, Clement F. Health technology reassessment: The art of the possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:418-423.
5. CHERE. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, 2010. Working Paper 2010/5.
6. Leggett L, Noseworthy TW, Zarrabi M, et al. Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: Current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:220-227.
7. Gerdvilaite J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvestment. Overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut for Health Technology Assessment (LBI HTA); 2011.
8. Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519.
9. 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.
10. Henshall C, Schuller T, Mardhani-Bayne L. Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: The challenge of "disinvestment". Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:203-210.
11. Haines T, O'Brien L, McDermott F, et al. Anovel research design can aid disinvestment from existing health technologies with uncertain effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:144-51.
12. Elshaug AG, McWilliams JM, Landon BE. The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013;309:775-776.
13. Howard DH, Shen Y-C. Comparative effectiveness research, technological abandonment, and health care spending. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2012;23:103-121.
14. Scott IA, Elshaug AG. Foregoing low-value care: How much evidence is needed to change beliefs? Intern Med J. 2013;43:107-109.
15. Health Technology Assessment International [Internet]. HTAi subgroup on patient and citizen involvement. 2015. http://www. htai. org/interestsub-groups/patient-and-citizen-involvement. html (accessed April 10, 2015).
16. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Future directions for health technology uptake, diffussion and disinvestment in Victorian public health services. Workshop discussion paper. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Government Department of Human Services; 2007.
17. 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 Health Department Basque Government (OSTEBA); 2009.
18. AtienzaMerinoG, Varela Lema L. Needs and demands of policy-makers. In: Velasco Garrido M, Børlum Kristensen F, Palmhøj Nielsen C, Busse R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe Current status, challenges and potential. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
19. Mitton C. Questionnaire: Identifying models and strategies for optimal resource allocation and disinvestment in health care systems-Focus on PBMA. 2013.
20. Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, Campbell D, Bryan S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based resource allocation in theVancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.
21. Chamberlain CA, Martin RM, Busby J, et al. Trends in procedures for infertility and caesarean sections: Was NICE disinvestment guidance implemented? NICE recommendation reminders. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:112.
22. Lavis JN, Røttingen J-A, Bosch-Capblanch X, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: Linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001186.