Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:15:01.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPACT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS ON DECISION MAKING IN AUSTRIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2012

Ingrid Zechmeister  and
Ines Schumacher
Ingrid Zechmeister
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institut–Health Technology [email protected]
Ines Schumacher
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institut–Health Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) was established in Austria in the 1990s and, since then, it has gained considerable importance. In this study, we aim to analyze whether the HTA reports that have been produced at the Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) and at the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for HTA (LBI-HTA) have had an impact on decision making within the Austrian health care system.

Methods: We selected all reports that were intended for supporting (i) reimbursement/investment or (ii) disinvestment decisions. Eleven full HTA reports and fifty-eight rapid assessments fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We used interview data and administrative data on volumes, tariffs and expenditure of products/services to analyze whether and how reports were in reality used in decision making and what the consequences for health care expenditure and resource distribution have been.

Results: Five full HTA reports and fifty-six rapid technology assessments were used for reimbursement decisions. Four full HTA reports and two rapid assessments were used for disinvestment decisions and resulted in reduced volumes and expenditure. Two full HTA reports showed no impact on decision making. Impact was most evident for hospital technologies.

Conclusions: HTA has played some role in reducing volumes of over-supplied hospital technologies, resulting in reduced expenditure for several hospital providers. Additionally, it has been increasingly included in prospective planning and reimbursement decisions of late, indicating re-distribution of resources toward evidence-based technologies. However, further factors may have influenced the decisions, and the impact could be considerably increased by systematically incorporating HTA into the decision-making process in Austria.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentImpact of HTAExpenditureDecision making
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 77 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.Abuzahra, M, Zechmeister, I, Wild, C.Mutter-kind-pass: Ein internationaler Vergleich zu den Untersuchungen an schwangeren Frauen. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2009.Google Scholar
2.Adlbrecht, C, Wild, C.Avastin bei altersbedingter makuladegeneration. Analyse der Sicherheit und Nebenwirkungen. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2007.Google Scholar
3.Antony, K, Fröschl, B, Rosian-Schikuta, I, et al. Health technology assessment. Einsatz und Bedarf in Österreich und Implikationen für die Verankerung in Österreich. Wien: Gesundheit Österreich GmbH; 2009.Google Scholar
4.Brorsson, B, Arvidsson, S. The effect of dissemination of recommendations on use. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:547–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Felder-Puig, R, Turk, E, Guba, B, et al. Das ärztlich-therapeutische Gespräch. Die Effektivität verstärkter Arzt-Patienten-Kommunikation. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2006.Google Scholar
6.Gläser, J, Laudel, G.Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 3., überarbeitete Auflage ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2009.Google Scholar
7.Hintringer, K, Wild, C.Bioresonance therapy for allergies, atopic dermatitis, non-organic gastrointestinal complaints, pain and rheumatic diseases. Decision support document no. 31. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2009.Google Scholar
8.Hintringer, K, Wild, C.Colon hydrotherapy for defecation disorders. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment. Decision support document no. 32; 2009.Google Scholar
9.Hofmarcher, M, Rack, H.Health systems in transition: Austria. Kopenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2006.Google Scholar
10.Jacob, R, Battista, RN. Assessing technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:564–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Jacob, R, McGregor, M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:68–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Jonas, S, Frank, W, Schmetterer, R, et al. Immunglobuline in der Transplantationsmedizin. Prävention und Therapie von Cytomegalie-Virusinfektionen. Wien: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 2001.Google Scholar
13.Jonas, S, Wild, C.Erythropoietin bei Tumoranämie. Wien: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 2000.Google Scholar
14.Kontrollamt der Stadt Wien. Unternehmung “Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund”, Prüfung betreffend Transparenzmängel im öffentlichen Gesundheitswesen der Gemeinde Wien. Wien: Kontrollamt der Stadt Wien; 2009.Google Scholar
15.Kvas, E.Medikamentfreisetzende Stents bei Koronarinterventionen im Vergleich zu nicht beschichteten Stents. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2006.Google Scholar
16.Langley, T, Gartlehner, G.Aromatherapy for pain relief and psychological problems. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.Google Scholar
17.Langley, T, Gartlehner, G.Bach flower remedies for pain relief and psychological problems. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment. Decision support document no. 17; 2008.Google Scholar
18.Mad, P, Geiger-Gritsch, S, Mittermayr, T, et al. Medikamentöse Wehenhemmung bei drohender Frühgeburt. Systematischer Review zu Leitlinien, Wirksamkeit und gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationen der Tokolyse. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2009.Google Scholar
19.Mad, P, Langer, T, Guba, B, et al. Rolle und Positionierung der Ambulanzen von Universitätskliniken im Gesundheitswesen. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2007.Google Scholar
20.Mayring, P.Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 10. Auflage ed. Weinheim: Beltz; 2008.Google Scholar
21.Nohl, A-M.Interview und dokumentarische Methode. Anleitung für die Forschungspraxis. 2., Auflage, überarbeitete ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Warmuth, M, Mad, P.Haemocomplettan® alone or in combination with Fibrogammin® in acquired hypofibrinogenemia. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2009.Google Scholar
23.Wild, C, Khene, M, Wanke, S.ESWT: Extrakorporale Stoßwellen-Therapie in der Orthopädie. Ein Assessment, final report. Wien: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 1998.Google Scholar
24.Wild, C, Narath, M, Frank, W.Evidenzbasierte Bedarfsplanung für Intensivbetten. Wien: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 2002.Google Scholar
25.Wild, C, Puig, S.Nicht-ionische Röntgenkontrastmittel. Klinische Relevanz der Unterschiede verschiedener Kontrastmittel. Wien: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 2003.Google Scholar
26.Zechmeister, I, Freiesleben de Blasio, B, Radlberger, P, et al. Economic evaluation of HPV vaccination in Austria. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2007.Google Scholar
27.Zechmeister, I, Wild, C, Langer, T, et al. Neonatologische Erstversorgung von Neugeborenen ohne vorab bekanntes Komplikationsrisiko. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2007.Google Scholar