scholarly journals Use of Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies In Dutch Healthcare Decision-Making: Barriers And Facilitators

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A540
Author(s):  
KJ Roseboom ◽  
JM van Dongen ◽  
E Tompa ◽  
MW van Tulder ◽  
JE Bosmans
1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Clouse ◽  
Jean Paul Gagnon ◽  
Greg Boyer ◽  
Diana Brixner ◽  
Carolyn Clancy ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
Enver Kagan Atikeler ◽  
Ahmad Nader Fasseeh ◽  
Bert Leufkens ◽  
Wim Goettsch

IntroductionTurkey's health reforms, which started in 2003, have led to increased access to health care and pharmaceuticals as well as rising public pharmaceutical expenditures. The need to improve healthcare decision making by implementing health technology assessment (HTA) has become an important priority for Turkey. This study sought to provide a tailor-made HTA implementation roadmap, drawing on insights from national stakeholders.Our study aimed to describe the current HTA environment in Turkey and to explore long-term perspectives and suggestions from a wide spectrum of Turkish stakeholders regarding the preferred status of HTA in ten years (by 2029).MethodsWe conducted an online survey using a questionnaire previously applied in other HTA research. We assessed the current evaluation of medical and economic decision-making processes and examined the need for HTA. We also ascertained stakeholder perspectives on potential developments that can be done together with policymakers, representatives of pharmaceutical companies, and patient organizations. We also included general information about the pharmaceutical market and decision making processes in Turkey.ResultsThe survey was sent to various stakeholders from different areas within the health system. Additional face-to-face interviews were conducted with a few respondents to clarify some of their answers. A total of twenty-seven Turkish stakeholders completed the survey. Of these, twenty-one (78%) participants were employed in the public sector and six (22%) were from the private sector. The majority of the participants would introduce HTA for all new health technologies being considered for public reimbursement and institute an additional review process for currently reimbursed technologies. Most of the respondents considered that only new technologies with significant budget impact should be evaluated in the next ten years.ConclusionsIt is clear that Turkey needs to implement an HTA process in the future. Our study shows stakeholder expectations, which will be helpful for creating an HTA implementation roadmap, and it is clear that different stakeholders have different views and expectations about HTA implementation in Turkey. The experiences of other countries will also be helpful during the implementation process.


Author(s):  
Paul Hansen ◽  
Nancy Devlin

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used to support healthcare decision-making. MCDA involves decision makers evaluating the alternatives under consideration based on the explicit weighting of criteria relevant to the overarching decision—in order to, depending on the application, rank (or prioritize) or choose between the alternatives. A prominent example of MCDA applied to healthcare decision-making that has received a lot of attention in recent years and is the main subject of this article is choosing which health “technologies” (i.e., drugs, devices, procedures, etc.) to fund—a process known as health technology assessment (HTA). Other applications include prioritizing patients for surgery, prioritizing diseases for R&D, and decision-making about licensing treatments. Most applications are based on weighted-sum models. Such models involve explicitly weighting the criteria and rating the alternatives on the criteria, with each alternative’s “performance” on the criteria aggregated using a linear (i.e., additive) equation to produce the alternative’s “total score,” by which the alternatives are ranked. The steps involved in a MCDA process are explained, including an overview of methods for scoring alternatives on the criteria and weighting the criteria. The steps are: structuring the decision problem being addressed, specifying criteria, measuring alternatives’ performance, scoring alternatives on the criteria and weighting the criteria, applying the scores and weights to rank the alternatives, and presenting the MCDA results, including sensitivity analysis, to decision makers to support their decision-making. Arguments recently advanced against using MCDA for HTA and counterarguments are also considered. Finally, five questions associated with how MCDA for HTA is operationalized are discussed: Whose preferences are relevant for MCDA? Should criteria and weights be decision-specific or identical for repeated applications? How should cost or cost-effectiveness be included in MCDA? How can the opportunity cost of decisions be captured in MCDA? How can uncertainty be incorporated into MCDA?


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 384-384
Author(s):  
Hyejin Kim ◽  
Molly Perkins ◽  
Thaddeus Pope ◽  
Patricia Comer ◽  
Mi-Kyung Song

Abstract ‘Unbefriended’ adults are those who lack decision-making capacity and have no surrogates or advance care plans. Little data exist on nursing homes (NHs)’ healthcare decision-making practices for unbefriended residents. This study aimed to describe NH staff’s perceptions of healthcare decision making on behalf of unbefriended residents. Sixty-six staff including administrators, physicians, nurses, and social workers from three NHs in one geographic area of Georgia, USA participated in a 31-item survey. Their responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Of 66 participants, eleven had been involved in healthcare decision-making for unbefriended residents. The most common decision was do-not-resuscitate orders. Decisions primarily were made by relying on the resident’s primary care physician and/or discussing within a facility interdisciplinary team. Key considerations in the decision-making process included “evidence that the resident would not have wanted further treatment” and the perception that “further treatment would not be in the resident’s best interest”. Compared with decision making for residents with surrogates, participants perceived decision making for unbefriended residents to be equally-more difficult. Key barriers to making decisions included uncertainty regarding what the resident would have wanted in the given situation and concerns regarding the ethically and legally right course of action. Facilitators (reported by 52 participants) included some information/knowledge about the resident, an understanding regarding decision-making-related law/policy, and facility-level support. The findings highlight the complexity and difficulty of healthcare decision making for unbefriended residents and suggest more discussions among all key stakeholders to develop practical strategies to support decision-making practices in NHs.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek C. Pandrangi ◽  
Nyssa Fox Farrell ◽  
Jess C. Mace ◽  
Kara Y. Detwiller ◽  
Timothy L. Smith ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document