Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:57:42.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Dimension in Health Care Technology Assessment Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

H. David Banta  and
Per Buch Andreasen
H. David Banta
Affiliation:
University of Limburg
Per Buch Andreasen
Affiliation:
Gentofte University Hospital, Hellerup
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article considers technology assessment (TA) to be a comprehensive form of policy research. Technology assessment must then have a relation to policy-making; in the area of health care, TA must relate to such political decisions as resource allocation. Since policies are determined politically, i.e., by factors such as power and influence, technology assessment is, or should be, part of a political process. Technology assessment seems to be developing predominantly as a technical and professional activity, carried out in centers with no relation to the policy-making process. While the impact of technology on health, as well as such broader impacts as those on financial costs, is a key concern, political considerations and political decision-making must always be an important dimension in health care TA.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 115 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Banta, H. D.Health activities of the Office of Technology Assessment. Journal of Medical Engineering, 1983, 7, 173–77.Google ScholarPubMed
Banta, H. D., & Behney, C. J.Policy formulation and technology assessment. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1981, 59, 3–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Buch, Andreasen P.Consensus conferences in different countries. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 305–08.Google Scholar
Buch, Andreasen P. Technology assessment: An opportunity for Europe. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Government Printing Office, 1987, 1, 209–11.Google Scholar
Calltorp, J.Consensus development conferences in Sweden: Effects on health policy and administration. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caspirie, A. F., & Everdingen, J. J. E.Consensus development conferences in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 905–12.Google Scholar
Coates, J.Technology assessment: The benefits … the costs … the consequences. Futurist, 1971, 5, 225–31.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. J. Technology assessment in Europe: Its present and future roles. In Rutten, F. F. H. & Reiser, S. T. (eds.), The economics of medical technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988, 54–79.Google Scholar
Van, Everdingen J. J. E. Consensus ontwikkeling in de geneeskunde [Consensus development in medicine]. Thesis, University of Amsterdam. Antwerp, Belgium: Bohn, Scheltema en Holkema, 1988.Google Scholar
Herdman, R. C., & Behney, C. J.Health and life sciences at the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 160–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacoby, I.The consensus development program of the National Institutes of Health. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnsson, M.Evaluation of the consensus development program in Sweden: Its impact on physicians. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 89–94.Google Scholar
Kosecoff, J., Kanouse, D. E., Rogers, W. H. et al. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 2708–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. Medical technology and cost of the Medicare program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. A review of selected federal vaccine and immunization policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. Update of federal activities regarding the use of pneumococcal vaccine. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
Perry, S.The brief life of the National Center for Health Care Technology. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1095–1100.Google Scholar
Rip, A.Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1986, 8, 349–71.Google Scholar
Ruby, G., Banta, H.D., & Burns, A. L.Using coverage policy tocontain Medicare costs. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1985, 10, 141–53.Google Scholar