In 2019, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) in Korea established a health technology reassessment (HTR) system to manage the life cycle of health technologies and develop operational measures promoting the efficient use of healthcare resources. The purpose of this study is to introduce the detailed implementation process and practical functional methods of the HTR implemented by NECA.

The HTR is a structured multidisciplinary method for analyzing health technologies currently used in the healthcare system based on the latest information on parameters, such as clinical safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of optimizing the use of healthcare resources as well as social and ethical issues. All decision-making stages of the HTR are carefully reviewed and transparently managed. The HTR committee makes significant decisions, and the subcommittee decides the details related to the assessment process.

Since the pilot began in 2018, 262 cases have been reassessed, of which, 126 cases (48.1 percent) were health services not covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI). Over the past 5 years, approximately 130 recommendations for the in-use technologies were determined by the HTR committee. In the near future, it will be necessary to officially develop and establish a Korean HTR system and a legal foundation to optimize the NHI system.

Although it's human centered focus, design thinking has proven to be effective also in technology-driven projects, both in education and business. Yet, scant research has investigated whether and how design thinking might be leveraged to find new opportunities based on emerging technologies and design new innovation concepts accordingly. To address this gap, we employed an Action Innovation Management Research framework and co-designed a program called Tech to Market with Oper.Space, the design factory for Open Innovation of the University of Bologna. We ran 5 iterations of the program from October 2018 to December 2022, in which we conducted 52 interviews, observed 10 presentations, and held 10 meetings with the main stakeholders involved. Our results show how to apply design thinking to find and design a suitable application for a given technology, contributing to the ongoing conversation about the implementation of design thinking in technology-driven projects.

Objectives: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a policy process to manage health technologies throughout their lifecycle and ensure their ongoing optimal use. However, within an ever-evolving field, HTR is only one of many concepts associated with the optimization of health technologies. There is limited understanding of how other concepts and processes might differ and/or be interrelated. This study aims to describe the concepts underlying the various technology optimization processes and to reconcile their relationships within the HTR process.

Methods: A synthesis of the literature on approaches to HTR was completed. An inductive synthesis approach was completed to catalogue common concepts and themes. Expert stakeholders were consulted to develop a schematic to diagrammatically depict the relationships among concepts and frame them within the HTR process.

Results: A practical schematic was developed. Common concepts and themes were organized under six major domains that address the following discussion questions: (i) what is the value of the existing technology?; (ii) what is the current utilization gap?; (iii) what are the available tools and resources?; (iv) what are the levers for change?; (v) what is the desired outcome?; and (vi) who are the foundational actors?

Conclusions: Using these six questions to frame the issues faced by HTR will advance the common understanding of HTR, as well as improve implementation of HTR initiatives. These questions will clearly identify the process required to move forward within a complex healthcare system.

Objectives: The role of biomedical engineers (BMEs) has changed widely over the years, from managing a group of technicians to the planning of large installations and the management of medical technology countrywide. As the technology has advanced, the competence of BMEs has been challenged because it is no longer possible to be an expert in every component of the technology involved in running a hospital. Our approach has been to form a network of professionals that are experts in different fields related to medical technology, where work is coordinated to provide high quality services at the planning and execution stages of projects related to medical technology.

Methods: A study of the procedures involved in the procurement of medical technology has been carried out over the years. These experiences have been compared with several case studies where the approach to problem solving in this area has been multidisciplinary. Planning and execution phases of projects involving medical technology management have been identified.

Results: After several instances of collaboration among experts from different fields, a network for management of healthcare technology has been formed at our institution that incorporates the experience from different departments that were dealing separately with projects involving medical technology.

Conclusions: This network has led us to propose this approach to solve medical technology management projects, where the strengths of each subgroup complement each other. This structure will lead to a more integrated approach to healthcare technology management and will ensure higher quality solutions.