Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:05:35.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Update on Assessment Activities: United States Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Itzhak Jacoby
Itzhak Jacoby
Affiliation:
National Institutes of Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present an update on biomedical technology assessment activities from a United States perspective. In 1985, I described in detail (a) a primary vehicle for technology assessment—the Consensus Development Program (CDP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)— and also discussed, in a second paper, (b) the transfer of consensus-enhanced scientific information and some of its impact on U.S. medical practice. Here, I focus on what has transpired during the past year: the changes in the climate in which U.S. technology assessment efforts are being conducted, the consequences of these changes, and the challenges that they pose for all concerned with the provision of quality health care. The first part of this paper centers on the broader framework within which technology assessment plays a role ir the United States. Later, it addresses the specific technology assessment and transfer activities in which the NIH is engaged.

Type
Special Section: Technology Assessment and the Alteration of Medical Practices
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 95 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Anderson, G., & Steinberg, E.To buy or not to buy: Technology acquisition under prospective payment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 182–85.Google Scholar
EMRC-NCHCT-NIH-WHO. Assessment of biomedical technology in the health care field. Proceedings of Joint Symposium of International Perspectives in Methodology, 09 1981.Google Scholar
Federal Register, 1013, 1978.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985, 9.Google Scholar
Jacoby, I.The consensus development program of the NIH: Current practices and historical perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–32.Google Scholar
Jacoby, I., & Rose, M.Transfer of information and its impact on medical practice: The U.S. experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 107–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of the Director, NIH. The responsibilities of NIH at the health research/health care interface. 02 28, 1977.Google Scholar
Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH. Technology assessment and technology transfer in DHHS. A report submitted to the Department of Commerce in compliance with the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–480). Bethesda, MD, 11 1984.Google Scholar
Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH. Criteria for identification of candidate technologies for consensus development. Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH. Participants' guide to consensus development conferences. Bethesda, MD, undated.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Strategies of medical technology assessment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982, 3.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Diagnosis related groups (DRGs) and the Medicare program: implications for medical technology. Technical Memorandum, 07 1983, iii.Google Scholar
Perry, S.Technology assessment: Continuing uncertainty. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315, 240–43.Google Scholar
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Report and Recommendations to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. First Annual Report, 04 1, 1985, 3.Google Scholar
Smits, H. L., & Watson, R. E.DRGs and the future of surgical practice. Special Article, New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 25, 1612–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J. L., Krieger, M. J. et al. , A study of the impact of reimbursement strategies on the diffusion of medical technologies. Final Report, Grant 18-P-97113/3−01, 06 1982, 1.Google Scholar
Wyngaarden, James, B. Editorial. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 1–2.Google Scholar