Literature DB >> 23389493

Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: a patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis.

John F P Bridges1.   

Abstract

Many countries now use health technology assessment (HTA) to review new and emerging technologies, especially with regard to reimbursement, pricing and/or clinical guidelines. One of the common, but not universal, features of these systems is the use of economic evaluation, normally cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), to confirm that new technologies offer value for money. Many have criticised these systems as primarily being concerned with cost containment, rather than advancing the interests of patients or innovators. This paper calls into question the underlying principles of CEA by arguing that value in the healthcare system may in fact be unconstrained. It is suggested that 'lean management principles' can be used not only to trim waste from the health system, but as a method of creating real incentives for innovation and value creation. Following the lean paradigm, this value must be defined purely from the patients' perspective, and the entire health system needs to work towards the creation of such value. This paper offers as a practical example a lean approach to HTA, arguing that such an approach would lead to better incentives for innovation in health, as well as more patient-friendly outcomes in the long run.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 23389493     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624002-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  40 in total

1.  A short history of INAHTA. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  D Hailey; D Menon
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  M Ryan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism?

Authors:  Stephen Birch; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  New and dis-improved: on the evaluation and use of less effective, less expensive medical interventions.

Authors:  David M Kent; A Mark Fendrick; Kenneth M Langa
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden.

Authors:  Per Carlsson
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness ratios: in a league of their own.

Authors:  S Birch; A Gafni
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program.

Authors:  Jane Royle; Sandy Oliver
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.188

8.  Adapting portfolio theory for the evaluation of multiple investments in health with a multiplicative extension for treatment synergies.

Authors:  J F P Bridges; M Stewart; M T King; K van Gool
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2002

9.  International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment.

Authors:  Eva Draborg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Peter Bo Poulsen; Mogens Horder
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 10.  High and rising health care costs. Part 1: seeking an explanation.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-05-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  4 in total

1.  Honoring pioneers in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Christopher I Carswell
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Lillian Kidane; Rebekah R Heinzen; Colleen McCormick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.

Authors:  Susan M Joy; Emily Little; Nisa M Maruthur; Tanjala S Purnell; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review.

Authors:  S'thembile Thusini; Maria Milenova; Noushig Nahabedian; Barbara Grey; Tayana Soukup; Claire Henderson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 2.908

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.