Literature DB >> 11154787

Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level -- the Israeli experience.

S Shani1, M I Siebzehner, O Luxenburg, J Shemer.   

Abstract

The rapid development of new and expensive health technologies together with the limited resources available for the health care system, makes priority setting or rationing inevitable. The Israeli Health Insurance Law, enacted in 1995, determined a basic list of health services to be provided to all residents by public funding. Although the Israeli health care system has reached a high standard of medical care as expressed by parameters such as long life expectancy and low infant mortality, the social and professional demand for new and expensive health technologies is increasing. Towards the fiscal year of 1999, the Medical Technologies Administration of the Ministry of Health recommended a list of new technologies to be added to the list of health services. The Ministry of Finance allocated that year US dollars 35 million for this purpose, while a rough assessment found that there are new important technologies to be added at a cost of more than US dollars 350 million. The Medical Technologies Administration took a systematic approach of health technology assessment - ad-hoc teams were established for evaluating clinical safety, efficacy and effectiveness, conducting needs assessment and cost-effectiveness descriptions. Assessment of the data was based on evidence-based medicine. A set of criteria was determined in order to enable the prioritizing of the assessed new technologies. This procedure led to a list of technologies suggested for inclusion. The Minister of Health appointed a public committee whose purpose was to decide the technologies to be added to the list of health services. The committee, made up of representatives from the government, the sick-funds and the public, had to evaluate each technology, based on the analysis submitted to the committee, taking into consideration clinical, economic, social, ethical and legal aspects according to predefined criteria. The thorough work of the Medical Technologies Administration enabled the committee to adopt its recommended list with minor changes within a limited timeframe. In conclusion, we propose a practical and pragmatic model for the inclusion of new health technologies at a national level, based on health technology assessment and explicit priority setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11154787     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00109-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  14 in total

1.  Impact of a financial risk-sharing scheme on budget-impact estimations: a game-theoretic approach.

Authors:  Arieh Gavious; Dan Greenberg; Ariel Hammerman; Ella Segev
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-12-11

2.  Public engagement in setting priorities in health care.

Authors:  Rebecca A Bruni; Andreas Laupacis; Douglas K Martin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  A systematic review of cost-sharing strategies used within publicly-funded drug plans in member countries of the organisation for economic co-operation and development.

Authors:  Lianne Barnieh; Fiona Clement; Anthony Harris; Marja Blom; Cam Donaldson; Scott Klarenbach; Don Husereau; Diane Lorenzetti; Braden Manns
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Dolorès Lepage-Savary; Johanne Gagnon; Michèle St-Pierre; Chantale Simard; Marc Rhainds; Renald Lemieux; François-Pierre Gauvin; Marie Desmartis; France Légaré
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Shared decision-making in Israel: status, barriers, and recommendations.

Authors:  Talya Miron-Shatz; Ofra Golan; Mayer Brezis; Gil Siegal; Glen M Doniger
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2012-01-30

6.  Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries.

Authors:  Lindsay M Sabik; Reidar K Lie
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2008-01-21

7.  Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care.

Authors:  Dan Greenberg; Ariel Hammerman; Shlomo Vinker; Adi Shani; Yuval Yermiahu; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2013-11-18

8.  The shaping of pharmaceutical governance: the Israeli case.

Authors:  Philip Sax
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2014-05-27

9.  Cancer Drug Pricing and Reimbursement: Lessons for the United States From Around the World.

Authors:  Daniel A Goldstein; Michal Sarfaty
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2016-07-06

10.  Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

Authors:  Jana Rogge; Bernhard Kittel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.