Translational health economics: The key to accountable adoption of in vitro diagnostic technologies

Health Services Management Research

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 43-50

  Price, Christopher P ^a   Wolstenholme, Jane ^a   McGinley, Patrick ^b   St John, Andrew ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b MAIDSTONE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c Australian Government Australian Research Council   (Australia)

Author keywords

financial management; health economics; laboratory medicine; technology adoption; translational leadership; value based healthcare

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BUDGET; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; IN VITRO STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INVENTION; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; UNITED KINGDOM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES; HUMANS; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; INVENTIONS; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85041619345     PISSN: 09514848     EISSN: 17581044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0951484817736727     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Scotland G, and Bryan S., 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. Med Decis Making 2016, doi: 10.1177/0272989X16653397
2. Thompson M, Price C, Van den Bruel A. Innovation in diagnostics and healthcare: improving bench to bedside processes for testing, www.oxford.dec.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/innovation_in_diagnostics.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
3. Institute of Medicine (Eds Yong PL, Saunders RS, and Olsen LA). The healthcare imperative. Lowering costs and improving outcomes. Workshop series summary, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53920/ (accessed 31 July 2017).
4. Kaplan RS, and Porter ME., How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev 2011; 89: 46–52. 5456–5461. passim.
5. Billings J, and de Weger E., Contracting for integrated health and social care: a critical review of four models. J Integ Care 2015; 23: 153–175.
6. Mountford J, and Davie C., Toward an outcomes-based health care system. A view from the United Kingdom. JAMA 2010; 304: 2407–2408.
7. Berwick DM, and Hackbarth AD., Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA 2012; 307: 1513–1516.
8. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Organisational and behavioural barriers to medical technology adoption, www.institute.nhs.uk/images/ResearchAndEvaluationReports/OBB_MTA.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
9. World Health Organization. Barriers to innovation in the field of medical devices. Background paper 6, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_HSS_EHT_DIM_10.6_eng.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
10. Robert G, Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F. Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010; 15: 243–250.
11. Department of Health. Innovation health and wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS, www.dh.gov.uk/health/2011/12/nhs-adoptinginnovation/ (accessed 31 July 2017).
12. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. Medical Research Council Guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655.
13. St John A, and Price CP., Economic evidence and point-of-care testing. Clin Biochem Rev 2013; 34: 61–64.
14. Price CP, and St John A., Anatomy of a value proposition for laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2014; 436C: 104–111.
15. Price CP, St John A, Christenson R. Leveraging the real value of laboratory medicine with the value proposition. Clin Chim Acta 2016; 462: 183–186.
16. Price CP., Evidence-based laboratory medicine: is it working in practice? Clin Biochem Rev 2012; 33: 13–19.
17. Callen J, Georgiou A, Li J. The safety implications of missed test results for hospitalised patients: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2011; 20: 194–199.
18. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e78962. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078962
19. Right Care. The NHS atlas of variation in diagnostic services, www.rightcare.nhs.uk/downloads/Right_Care_Diagnostics_Atlas_hi-res.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
20. Driskell OJ, Holland D, Hanna FW. Inappropriate requesting of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widespread: assessment of prevalence, impact of national guidance, and practice-to-practice variability. Clin Chem 2012; 58: 906–915.
21. Baker K, Dunwoodie E, Jones RG. Process mining routinely collected electronic health records to define real-life clinical pathways during chemotherapy. Int J Med Inform 2017; 103: 32–41.
22. St John A, Edwards G, Fisher S. A call for a value based approach to laboratory medicine funding. Clin Biochem 2015; 48: 823–826.
23. Erstad BL., Value-based medicine: dollars and sense. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 375–380.
24. Donabedian A., An introduction to quality assurance in healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p.200.
25. The Kings Fund. The NHS productivity challenge: experience from the frontline, www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/the-nhs-productivity-challenge-kingsfund-may14.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
26. Goodacre S, Thokala P, Carroll C. Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coronary syndrome. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17: 1.
27. Mueller C., Cost-effectiveness of B-type natriuretic peptide testing. Congest Heart Fail 2008; 14: 35–37.
28. Goodwin E, and Frew EJ., Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust. Soc Sci Med 2013; 98: 162–168.
29. Charles JM, Brown G, Thomas K. Use of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a framework for resource reallocation in respiratory care in North Wales, UK. J Public Health 2015; Sep 16. pii: fdv12.
30. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health 2014; 17: 5–14.
31. Chadee A, Blackhouse G, and Goeree R., Point-of-care hemoglobin A1c testing: a budget impact analysis. Ontario Health Technol Assess Ser 2014; 14: 1–23.
32. Cheng Q, Greenslade JH, Parsonage WA. Change to costs and lengths of stay in the emergency department and the Brisbane protocol: an observational study. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e009746 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009746.
33. The Kings Fund. Service-line management Can it improve quality and efficiency? www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/service-linemanagement-quality-efficiency-kings-fund-january2011.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
34. Kaplan RS, Witkowski M, Abbott M. Using time driven activity-based costing to identify value-improvement opportunities in health care. J Health Manag 2014; 59: 399–413.
35. Waago-Hansen C., How time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) enables better use of existing resources in order to improve return on investment (ROI) in modern healthcare and hence facilitates a sustainable healthcare system. theHealth 2014; 5: 3–8.
36. Yun BJ, Prabhakar AM, Warsh J. Time-driven activity-based costing in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 67: 765–772.
37. Hadker N, Garg S, Costanzo C. Financial impact of a novel pre-eclampsia diagnostic test versus standard practice: a decision-analytic modeling analysis from a UK healthcare payer perspective. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 728–737.
38. Henshall C, Schuller T, and 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.
39. Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, and Holmes A., Technology adoption and implementation in organisations: comparative case studies of 12 English NHS Trusts. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e000872 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000872.
40. Lee TH., Putting the value framework to work. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2481–2483.