Health technology assessment in Australia: A role for clinical registries?

Australian Health Review

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 19-25

  Scott, Anna Mae ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

coverage with evidence development (CED); evidence; interim funding; uncertainty.

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AUSTRALIA; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DEVICE SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; REGISTER;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AUSTRALIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; REGISTRIES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85011582043     PISSN: 01565788     EISSN: 14498944     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1071/AH15109     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Government of Australia. Review of health technology assessment in Australia: December 2009. 2009. Available at: http://www.health.gov. au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/AF68234CE9EB8A78CA257 BF00018CBEB/File/hta-review-report.pdf [verified 30 April 2015].
2. Banta D. Considerations in defining evidence for public health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 559-72. doi:10.1017/S0266462 303000515
3. McGregor M, Brophy J. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21: 263-7.
4. Saarni S, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Luhmann D, Makela M, Velasco-Garrido M, Autti-Ramo I. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 2008; 86: 617-23. doi:10.2471/BLT.08.051078
5. ten Have H. Medical technology assessment and ethics: ambivalent relations. Hastings Cent Rep 1995; 25: 13-9. doi:10.2307/3562789
6. Velasco-Garrido M, Gerhardus A, Rottingen J, Busse R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy 2010; 94: 196-202. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.10.002
7. Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 283-5.
8. Daniel G. Coverage with evidence development for Medicare beneficiaries: challenges and next steps. JAmMed Assoc InternalMed 2013; 173: 1281-2.
9. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 425-35. doi:10.1017/S0266462307070651
10. Longworth L, YounJ, Bojke L, Palmer S, Griffin S, Spackman E, Claxton K. When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development? A systematic review of NICE guidance. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31: 137-49. doi:10.1007/s40273-012-0013-6
11. Stafinski T, McCabe C, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 113-42. doi:10.2165/11530820-000000000-00000
12. McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D. Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 143-52. doi:10.2165/11530850-00000 0000-00000
13. Menon D, McCabe C, Stafinski T, Edlin R. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 109-11. doi:10.2165/11530860-000000000-00000
14. Bulfone L, Younie S, Carter R. Health technology assessment: reflections from the antipodes. Value Health 2009; 12: S28-38. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00556.x
15. Commonwealth Department of Health. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) terms of reference. 2014. Available at: http://www. msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/msac-tor-1 [verified 7 May 2015].
16. Chalkidou K, Lord J, Fischer A, Littlejohns P. Evidence-based decision making: when should we wait for more information? Health Aff 2008; 27: 1642-53. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1642
17. Chew D. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: if only all things were equal. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 376-7.
18. Campbell B, Stainthorpe A, Longson C. How can we get high quality routine data to monitor the safety of devices and procedures? BMJ 2013; 346: 1-3. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2782
19. Dreyer N, Garner S. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA 2009; 302: 790-1. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1092
20. Gliklich R, Dreyer N, Leavy M. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide. 3rd edn. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
21. Commonwealth Department of Health. Framework for the introduction of a managed entry scheme for submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2011. Available at: http://www.pbs.gov. au/info/publication/factsheets/shared/framework-for-introduction-ofmanaged-entry-scheme-for-PBAC-submissions [verified 7 May 2015].
22. IMS Health. Critical appraisal: PillCam capsule endoscopy register report. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2007.
23. O'Malley S, Selby W, Jordan E. A successful practical application of coverage with evidence development in Australia: Medical Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam capsule endoscopy register. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 290-6. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990250
24. Australian Safety and Efficacy of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical (ASERNIP-S). Australian audit of endovascular aneurysm repair. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2006.