Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-jrqft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:02:42.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Budgeting and health technology assessment: First evidence obtained from proposal forms used to submit the adoption of new technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Emanuele Lettieri ,
Cristina Masella  and
Umberto Nocco
Emanuele Lettieri
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Cristina Masella
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Umberto Nocco
Affiliation:
A.O. Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to benchmark the proposal forms used by a sample of Italian hospitals to inform the budget process for the adoption of new technology to understand the relationship with the guidelines provided by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) literature.

Methods: A literature review was first undertaken to identify the frameworks developed to support decision making regarding new technology at a hospital level. A checklist of criteria drawn up according to five main perspectives (technology, patient, organization, economics, and level of evidence) has been formalized to review and compare the collected proposal forms.

Results: The “technology” perspective appears to have been broadly covered. The “patient” perspective has focused to clinical issues and partially neglects other dimensions such as patient satisfaction and potential adverse events. The “organization” dimension has paid little attention to change management. The “economics” dimension has been broadly covered, even though a sensitivity analysis has not been considered. The “level of evidence” that is required for submitting the proposal form is little.

Conclusions: The proposal forms used to inform the budget process regarding the adoption of new technology are accountable for a limited set of dimensions from among those proposed in literature. Further research is required to understand how to render technology assessment multidimensional, multidisciplinary, evidence-based, and accountable at a hospital level.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPriority settingBudgetHospitalsHealthcare technology
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 502 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

1. Azzone, G, Lettieri, E, Masella, C. Does shareholder value make sense in healthcare organisations in order to assess investment proposals? Int J Healthc Technol Manage. 2002;4:220–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Briones, E, Loscertales, M, Pérez Lozano, MJ. GANT Project: Methodology for the development and preliminary study of the guide. Sevilla: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía; 1999.Google Scholar
3. Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M. Nelle aziende tanta voglia di Health Technology Assessment. Il Sole 24 Ore Sanità, 2005;2-8 August:14–15.Google Scholar
4. Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26:303–502.Google Scholar
5. Drummond, M, Weatherly, H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Drummond, MF, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
7. Ehlers, L, Vestergaard, M, Kidholm, K, et al. Doing mini–health technology assessments in hospitals: A new concept of decision support in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:295–301.Google Scholar
8. Escarce, JJ. Externalities in hospitals and physician adoption of a new surgical technology: An exploratory analysis. J Health Econ. 1996;15:715–734.Google Scholar
9. Farrar, S, Ryan, M, Ross, D, et al. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: An application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:63–75.Google Scholar
10. Haines, A, Jones, R. Implementing findings of research. BMJ. 1994;308:1488–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Lettieri, E, Masella, C. Adopting ICTs in healthcare organisations: A framework to measure value and sustainability. Int J Healthc Technol Manage. 2006;7:319–332.Google Scholar
12. Lumsdon, K. Beyond tech assessment: Balancing needs, strategy. Hospitals. 1992;66:20–26.Google Scholar
13. Nyland, K, Pettersen, IJ. The control gap: The role of budgets, accounting information and (non-) decisions in hospital settings. Financ Account Manage. 2004;20:77–102.Google Scholar
14. Sloane, EB, Liberatore, MJ, Nydick, RL, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an interactive, multidisciplinary, microeconomic health technology assessment. Comput Oper Res. 2000;30:1447–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. The World Health Report 2000. Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
16. Uphoff, ME, Krane, D. Hospital-based technology assessment. Public Product Manage Rev. 1998;22:60–70.Google Scholar
17. Yin, RK. Case study research, design and methods. Newbury Park, Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar