IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2010-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. CHERE Working Paper 2010/5

Author

Listed:
  • Gisselle Gallego
  • Marion Haas

    (CHERE, University of Technology,Sydney)

  • Jane Hall

    (CHERE, University of Technology,Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (CHERE, University of Technology,Sydney)

Abstract

This report covers international and Australian models for reducing the use of ineffective interventions, also described as disinvestment. Disinvestment is a development of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Conventionally HTA has focussed on the introduction of new technologies. Although medical technology is advancing rapidly, there remain very many technologies in use which have not been subject to formal HTA. This has stimulated a growing interest in disinvestment. This review identified a number of case studies and pilot projects. There is limited information available on the mechanisms used, and no rigorous evaluations of their impact. The most developed model is that of NICE which has recently embarked on providing guidance for disinvestment. A number of technologies have been reviewed;but there is limited information available on how these were identified, how disinvestment is implemented, or what the effect has been. There is substantial resistance to any active disinvestment. Across the various case studies, appraisal of candidate technologies seems most likely to be triggered by expert opinion. In Australia, disinvestment is also generally passive. Technologies may be removed from funding or reimbursement if new research demonstrating harms or inefficacy becomes public. More generally, technologies fall into disuse, and are gradually replaced by new or improved technologies. Even when guidelines or funding rules are changed, there is generally continued use of an existing technology. This review has found that active disinvestment has generally been removal of funding for ineffective and/or unsafe technologies, usually initiated by new evidence of inefficacy or harm. Disinvestment is more likely to be passive, ie driven by changes in medical practice, as a procedure or treatment gradually falls out of use over time. There are very few instances of disinvestment, or appraisal for disinvestment, driven by considerations of cost-effectiveness. There are considerable difficulties implementing disinvestment in ineffective health care practices. One area of difficulty is an appropriate mechanism for identifying candidate technologies for appraisal. No explicit processes were identified, although there are a number of published criteria for prioritising candidates. The US is embarking on a major new program of HTA, termed Comparative Effectiveness Research. The list of priority topics for appraisal was developed by the Institute of Medicine, using nominations from health professionals, consumer advocates, policy analysts and others. The development of the candidate topics was a major exercise in itself. Studies of medical practice variations can also be used to identify candidate topics for appraisal. To date, there has been relatively little systematic investigation into practice variations in Australia. The availability of rich data sets which allow analysis on the basis of small areas is essential to research in this field, as is the research capacity to allow rigorous analysis. Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis is a technique which uses HTA methods to drive disinvestment and reinvestment. It is a relatively resource-intensive activity, and requires clinicians to identify activities for disinvestment. Another area of difficulty arises because there are few or no incentives for clinicians in disinvestment. Thus reinforces the problems of identifying technologies for appraisal. As disinvestment will create losses, to clinicians, to consumers and to providers of the technology, there will be strong resistance to any active withdrawal of funding. At the same time, the additional benefits and/or savings from any disinvestments may not be realised for a considerable period of time and there is a risk that, for some products,interventions or services, cost savings, in particular, may not be realised. This increases the cost of pursuing disinvestment. Both HTA and disinvestment can be seen in a much broader context, that is the challenge is to ensure that the additional health spending brings commensurate benefits ? ensuring health system efficiency. Although there is considerable interest in disinvestment, there are problems in identifying which technologies should be considered for disinvestment, and strong incentives to retain existing technologies. Disinvestment does occur, but generally as a result of existing treatments or other interventions falling into disfavour. An alternative approach to proactive disinvestment of specific technologies is to encourage more rapid change in medical practice. There are various strategies for health care reform which can be categorised as changing provider information, such as through the use of clinical guidelines, or the results of practice variations studies; changing incentives, though different payments for clinicians and other providers, or specifically targeted incentives; changing consumer behaviour, by providing more information with or without financial incentives; or changing the structures of health service delivery to provide organisational support and incentives for more efficient purchasing of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Gisselle Gallego & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2010. "Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. CHERE Working Paper 2010/5," Working Papers 2010/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2010/5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2010_5.pdf
    File Function: First version,
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Productivity Commission, 2005. "Impacts of Advances in Medical Technology in Australia," Research Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 17.
    2. Haas, Marion & Viney, Rosalie & Kristensen, Elizabeth & Pain, Charles & Foulds, Kim, 2001. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis to assist population based strategic planning for coronary heart disease," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 173-186, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joanne Castonguay, 2011. "Analyse comparative des mécanismes de gestion des paniers de services," CIRANO Project Reports 2011rp-16, CIRANO.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2014. "Has Medical Innovation Reduced Cancer Mortality?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 60(1), pages 135-177.
    2. Colombier, Carsten & Weber, Werner, 2009. "Projecting health-care expenditure for Switzerland: further evidence against the 'red-herring' hypothesis," MPRA Paper 26747, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2009.
    3. Bonny Parkinson, 2013. "Pharmaceutical policy in Australia. CHERE Working Paper 2013/01," Working Papers 2013/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    4. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    5. Lichtenberg, Frank R. & Tatar, Mehtap & Çalışkan, Zafer, 2014. "The effect of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity, hospitalization and medical expenditure in Turkey, 1999–2010," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 361-373.
    6. Brian Reddy & Praveen Thokala & Alison Iliff & Kerry Warhurst & Helen Chambers & Lynsey Bowker & Stephen J. Walters & Alejandra Duenas & Michael P. Kelly, 2016. "Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 161-181, November.
    7. Bergh, Andreas, 2016. "The Future of Welfare Services: How Worried Should We Be about Wagner, Baumol and Ageing?," Working Paper Series 1109, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Wydra, Sven, 2015. "Challenges for technology diffusion policy to achieve socio-economic goals," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 76-90.
    9. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    10. Brayan V. Seixas & François Dionne & Craig Mitton, 2021. "Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Astolfi, Roberto & Lorenzoni, Luca & Oderkirk, Jillian, 2012. "Informing policy makers about future health spending: A comparative analysis of forecasting methods in OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 1-10.
    12. Colombier, Carsten, 2012. "Healthcare expenditure projections up to 2060," MPRA Paper 104919, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Gallego, Gisselle & Taylor, Susan Joyce & Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth, 2009. "Funding and access to high cost medicines in public hospitals in Australia: Decision-makers' perspectives," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 27-34, September.
    14. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2015. "Pharmaceutical Innovation, Longevity, and Medical Expenditure in Greece, 1995-2010," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 277-299, July.
    15. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    16. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    17. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    18. Kamil Dybczak & Bartosz Przywara, 2010. "The role of technology in health care expenditure in the EU," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 400, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    19. Lichtenberg, Frank R., 2014. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity and medical expenditure in France, 2000–2009," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 107-127.
    20. Frank R. Lichtenberg & Billie Pettersson, 2014. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity and medical expenditure in Sweden, 1997-2010: evidence from longitudinal, disease-level data," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 239-273, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Disinvestment; Health Technology Assessment; Ineffective health care interventions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2010/5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Liz Chinchen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.