IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing Value from Health Technologies in Lean Times

Author

Listed:
  • Ake Blomqvist

    (Carleton University and C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Colin Busby

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Don Husereau

    (Institute of Health Economics and University of Ottawa.)

Abstract

The adoption of new health technologies brings potential improvements to quality of life as well as new costs for provincial healthcare systems. An appropriate evidence-based framework for adoption decisions therefore can go a long way to improving value for money in our health systems. While making decisions to adopt new technologies is a highly politicized process, these decisions must nonetheless strive to make use of all available evidence, including economic evaluations that consider all the costs and consequences of new technologies for society as a whole, including medical, ethical, legal, social and cultural. This Commentary focuses on an emerging, evidence-based policy tool called Health Technology Assessment (HTA). HTA helps inform decisionmaking on how to balance demand and supply pressures for new technologies within a health-system budget. The overarching objective is to obtain the greatest health gains within fiscal constraints by grounding decisions in a clear, transparent and coordinated process. In Canada, the number of entities engaged in various forms of HTA has been growing, and more and more people in healthcare are becoming exposed to the techniques involved. This progress and capacity growth is encouraging. However, rather than counting on a natural slowing of healthcare costs to relieve fiscal pressures, the provinces would be better off grounding their efforts in clear and coordinated HTA processes that incorporate economic evaluation and meaningful collaborative deliberation based on available evidence. This Commentary also looks at examples of HTA experience outside Canada and highlights lessons for Ottawa and the provinces. At present, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK is by far the most advanced example of an attempt to utilize a consistent framework for technology adoption in a government-funded healthcare system. The UK’s current transition toward “value-based pricing” is another positive example of how HTA economic evaluation can be used to inform technology adoption in a more constructive way than with traditional “yes” or “no” recommendations. Canadian HTA agencies should draw as much as possible on existing international evidence – from randomized clinical trials, post-market assessments, clinical guidelines, etc. – and maintain close relationships with their counterparts in other countries and international organizations. Finally, HTA frameworks in Canada also must aim to encourage greater stakeholder participation and relationship development.

Suggested Citation

  • Ake Blomqvist & Colin Busby & Don Husereau, 2013. "Capturing Value from Health Technologies in Lean Times," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 396, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/capturing-value-health-technologies-lean-times
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Buxton, 2005. "How much are health-care systems prepared to pay to produce a QALY?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 285-287, December.
    2. Michael Drummond, 2012. "Twenty Years of Using Economic Evaluations for Reimbursement Decisions. What Have We Achieved?," Working Papers 075cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Koenig, Pamina & MacGarvie, Megan, 2011. "Regulatory policy and the location of bio-pharmaceutical foreign direct investment in Europe," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 950-965.
    4. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Erratum: Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(12), pages 1510-1510, December.
    5. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Valuing health technologies at nice: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1109-1116, October.
    6. David A. Dodge & Richard Dion, 2011. "Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease: A Macro Diagnosis and Prognosis," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 327, April.
    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. Åke Blomqvist & Colin Busby, 2016. "The Naylor Report and Health Policy: Canada Needs a New Model," e-briefs 240, C.D. Howe Institute.
    2. Claude Forget, 2014. "The Case of the Vanishing Quebec Physicians: How to Improve Access to Care," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 410, May.

    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. Andrew Briggs, 2016. "A View from the Bridge: Health Economic Evaluation — A Value‐Based Framework?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1499-1502, December.
    2. Goldman Dana P. & Lakdawalla Darius N. & Baumgardner James R. & Linthicum Mark T., 2016. "Are Biopharmaceutical Budget Caps Good Public Policy?," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 27-42, December.
    3. Ulucanlar, S. & Faulkner, A. & Peirce, S. & Elwyn, G., 2013. "Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    5. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.
    6. Grepstad, Mari & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 203-211.
    7. Andrew Sharpe, 2011. "Is Ageing a Drag on Productivity Growth? A Review Article on Ageing, Health and Productivity: The Economics of Increased Life Expectancy," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 21, pages 82-94, Spring.
    8. Abecassis, Philippe & Coutinet, Nathalie, 2015. "Médicaments génériques : pivot de la reconstruction de l’industrie pharmaceutique," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 17.
    9. Bailey, Nicholas, 2018. "Exploring the relationship between institutional factors and FDI attractiveness: A meta-analytic review," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 139-148.
    10. Ruolz Ariste & Livio Di Matteo, 2017. "Value for money: an evaluation of health spending in Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 289-310, September.
    11. Jonathan Jones, 2017. "Agglomeration economies and the location of foreign direct investment: A meta-analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 731-757, November.
    12. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    13. Grady, Patrick, 2012. "The parent and grandparent immigration program in Canada: costs and proposed changes," MPRA Paper 37289, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Mar 2012.
    14. Stein, Alexander J. & Meenakshi, J.V. & Qaim, Matin & Nestel, Penelope & Sachdev, H.P.S. & Bhutta, Zulfiqar A., 2008. "Potential impacts of iron biofortification in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1797-1808, April.
    15. Don Drummond & Evan Capeluck, 2015. "The Role of Productivity in Long-Term Economic and Fiscal Projections for the Canadian Provinces and Territories, 2014-2038," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 29, pages 3-17, Fall.
    16. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    17. Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "A model to optimize investments in health technologies, quality of care and research," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(20), pages 2031-2039, April.
    18. Don Drummond & Evan Capeluck, 2015. "Long-term Fiscal and Economic Projections for Canada and the Provinces and Territories, 2014-2038," CSLS Research Reports 2015-08, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    19. Colin Busby & Åke Blomqvist, 2017. "The Paradox of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in Canadian Healthcare," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 480, May.
    20. Amelia Compagni & Claudio Jommi, 2016. "Attrarre investimenti per la ricerca clinica e sanitaria," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(99), pages 109-115.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Policy; Health Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:cdh:commen:396. 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: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.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.