Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:53:17.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translating Technology Assessment Into Policy: Conceptual Issues and Tough Choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Raisa B. Deber
Raisa B. Deber
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conceptual issues arise in translating the results of technology assessment into policy. A 3 × 3 typology suggests that tough decisions occur when interventions promise increased benefit for increased cost or less benefit for less cost. These decisions are value based; technology assessment alone cannot determine who should receive an intervention and under what circumstances.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 130 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

1.Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Policy workshop on health care technology assessment. Hamilton, Ontario: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1988.Google Scholar
2.Crawshaw, R., Garland, M., Hines, B., & Anderson, B.Developing principles for prudent health care allocation. The continuing Oregon experiment. Western Journal of Medicine, 1990, 152, 441–46Google ScholarPubMed
3.Deber, R. B., Thompson, G. G., & Leatt, P.Technology acquisition in Canada: Control in a regulated market. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Eisenberg, J. M.Doctors’ decisions and the cost of medical care. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press Perspectives, 1986.Google Scholar
5.Goel, V., Deber, R. B., & Detsky, A. S.Nonionic contrast media: Economic analysis and health policy development. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1989, 140, 389–95.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Goldsmith, M. F.Oregon pioneers ‘more ethical’ Medicaid coverage with priority-setting project. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 262, 176–77.Google Scholar
7.Institute of Medicine. Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Division of Health Sciences Policy. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
8.Mosteller, F., & Burdick, E.Current issues in health care technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 123–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Neuhauser, D., & Lewicki, A. M.What do we gain from the sixth stool guaiac? New England Journal of Medicine, 1975, 293, 226–28.Google Scholar