Why Do Health Economists Promote Technology Adoption Rather Than the Search for Efficiency? A Proposal for a Change in Our Approach to Economic Evaluation in Health Care

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 139-147

  Scotland, Graham ^a,b   Bryan, Stirling ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness analysis; decision analysis; economic evaluation; health economics methods

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; LIFE CYCLE; MODEL; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85009781506     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16653397     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Bryan S, Mitton C, Donaldson C., Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ. 2014; 23 (4): 379-83.
2. Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health. 2014; 17 (1): 98-108.
3. Riggs KR, Ubel PA., The role of professional societies in limiting indication creep. J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30 (2): 249-52.
4. 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 (5): 269-73.
5. Isaacs D., Palivizumab: an example of indication creep. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2724.
6. Djulbegovic B, Paul A., From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep. JAMA. 2011; 305 (19): 2005-6.
7. Hebert PC, Stanbrook M., Indication creep: physician beware. CMAJ. 2007; 177 (7): 697, 699.
8. Davies C, Briggs A, Lorgelly P, Garellick G, Malchau H., The "hazards" of extrapolating survival curves. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33 (3): 369-80.
9. Fronsdal KB, Facey K, Klemp M, Norderhaug IN, Morland B, Rottingen JA., Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26 (3): 309-16.
10. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M., The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997; 2 (1): 26-30.
11. Hoomans T, Fenwick EA, Palmer S, Claxton K., Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009; 12 (2): 315-24.
12. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S., The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess. 2008; 12 (7): iii, ix-x, 1-175.
13. Javitt JC, Aiello LP, Chiang Y, Ferris FL III, Canner JK, Greenfield S., Preventive eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government: implications for health-care reform. Diabetes Care. 1994; 17 (8): 909-17.
14. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352 (9131): 837-53.
15. Hollingworth W, Rooshenas L, Busby J, et al. Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2015; 3 (13).
16. Bynum J, Song Y, Fisher E., Variation in prostate-specific antigen screening in men aged 80 and older in fee-for-service Medicare. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58 (4): 674-80.
17. 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 (3): 220-7.
18. 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 (1): 6-12.
19. Facey K, Cummins E, Macpherson K, Morris A, Reay L, Slattery J., Organisation of Services for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Health Technology Assessment Report 1. Glasgow, UK: Halth Technology Board for Scotland; 2002.
20. Looker HC, Nyangoma SO, Cromie DT, et al. Predicted impact of extending the screening interval for diabetic retinopathy: the Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Screening programme. Diabetologia. 2013; 56 (8): 1716-25.
21. Leese GP., Should diabetes retinal screening intervals change? Diabetes Med. 2013; 30 (1): 43-45.
22. Leese GP, Stratton IM, Land M, et al. Progression of diabetes retinal status within community screening programs and potential implications for screening intervals. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38 (3): 488-94.
23. Scotland G, McKeigue P, Philip S, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adopting risk-stratified approaches to extended screening intervals in the national diabetic retinopathy screening programme in Scotland. Diabetic Med. 2016 4 (Early view).
24. Richardson G, Bloor K, Williams J, et al. Cost effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET). BMJ. 2009; 338: b270.
25. Wonderling D, Sawyer L, Fenu E, Lovibond K, Laramee P., National Clinical Guideline Centre cost-effectiveness assessment for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154 (11): 758-65.
26. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Brennan A, Squires H, Glynne-Jones R, Tappenden J., Using whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions: economic evaluation of a clinical guideline for colorectal cancer using a single model. Value Health. 2013; 16 (4): 542-53.
27. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Colorectal cancer: diagnosis and management. NICE guidelines (CG131). 2011. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg131
28. Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17 (20): vii-xix, 1-281.
29. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17 (1): 168-72.
30. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. NICE Clinical Guideline 175. 2014. Web based document; available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175
31. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013; 64 (6): 981-7.
32. Laing K, Bramwell S, McNeill A, Corr B, Lam T., Prostate cancer is Scotland: does geography matter? An analysis of incidence, disease characteristics and survival between urban and rural areas. J Clin Urol. 2014; 7 (3): 176-84.
33. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S., Shared decision making-pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366 (9): 780-1.
34. Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 40 (3): 765-77.
35. Greenland S., Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data. J R Statist Soc A. 2005; 168: 267-306.
36. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367 (3): 203-13.
37. Naudie D,. Hip arthroscopy versus conservative management of femoroacetabular impingement. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01853683?term=conservative+management&rank=17
38. Hollingworth W, Chamberlain C., NICE recommendations for disinvestment. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5772.
39. Karnon J, Carlton J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K., Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009; 7 (1): 1-9.
40. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Brennan A, Squires H, Stevenson M., Whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions in cancer: a methodological framework. Value Health. 2012; 15 (8): 1127-36.
41. Lord J, Willis S, Eatock J, et al. Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17 (58): v-vi, 1-192.
42. Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM., Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000; 9 (3): 235-51.
43. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L., Validation of the Archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26 (11): 3102-10.
44. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L., Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26 (11): 3093-101.
45. Weinstein MC, Coxson PG, Williams LW, Pass TM, Stason WB, Goldman L., Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the coronary heart disease policy model. Am J Public Health. 1987; 77 (11): 1417-26.
46. Goffin JR, Flanagan WM, Miller AB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Canada. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1 (6): 807-13.
47. Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, et al. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362 (7): 590-9.
48. Bott OJ, Hoffmann I, Bergmann J, et al. Simulation based cost-benefit analysis of a telemedical system for closed-loop insulin pump therapy of diabetes. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006; 124: 435-40.
49. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L, Kahn R., Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of strategies for managing people at high risk for diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 143 (4): 251-64.
50. Moran AE, Odden MC, Thanataveerat A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hypertension therapy according to 2014 guidelines. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372 (5): 447-55.
51. Odden MC, Pletcher MJ, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness and population impact of statins for primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162 (8): 533-41.