IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/otg/wpaper/1006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Health Technology Prioritisation: Which criteria for prioritising new technologies, and what are their relative weights?

Author

Listed:
  • Ofra Golan

    (Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Israel)

  • Paul Hansen

    (Department of Economics, University of Otago)

  • Giora Kaplan

    (Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Israel)

  • Orna Tal

    (Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Israel)

Abstract

Objectives: To review the criteria and ÔotherÕ considerations used internationally for prioritising new health technologies, and to demonstrate a conjoint-analysis methodology for deriving relative weights for the criteria. Methods: We searched the literature for criteria and other considerations used internationally for prioritising new technologies. For a set of criteria related to the ÔbenefitsÕ from technologies, we used a conjoint-analysis survey with a convenience sample of 74 participants to derive their weights. Results: Covering 11 countries and the US state of Oregon, we distinguished three main groups of criteria: (a) Need, appropriateness and clinical benefits; (b) Efficiency (including cost-effectiveness); and (c) Equality, solidarity and other ethical or social values. For several countries, the quality of the clinical and economic evidence and factors related to strategic issues and procedural justice respectively are also considered. The criteria in the conjoint- analysis survey and their derived weights are: ÔLives savedÕ = 0.343, ÔLife-prolongation benefitsÕ = 0.243, ÔQuality-of-life gainsÕ = 0.217, a criterion representing the availability of alternative treatments = 0.107, and ÔOther important social / ethical benefitsÕ = 0.087. Conclusions: The criteria represented a pluralistic combination of needs-based, maximising and egalitarian principles, and we demonstrated a methodology for deriving their weights based on a conjoint-analysis survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Ofra Golan & Paul Hansen & Giora Kaplan & Orna Tal, 2010. "Health Technology Prioritisation: Which criteria for prioritising new technologies, and what are their relative weights?," Working Papers 1006, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:otg:wpaper:1006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/economics/research/otago077133.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Ramón Álvarez-Esteban, 2008. "Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 5(2), pages 201-203, December.
    3. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Golan, Ofra & Hansen, Paul & Kaplan, Giora & Tal, Orna, 2011. "Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 126-135.
    2. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    4. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    5. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    8. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    11. Boone, Jan, 2015. "Basic versus supplementary health insurance: Moral hazard and adverse selection," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 50-58.
    12. 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.
    13. Manuel Gomes & Robert Aldridge & Peter Wylie & James Bell & Owen Epstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 107-117, April.
    14. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    15. Fan Yang & Colin Angus & Ana Duarte & Duncan Gillespie & Mark Sculpher & Simon Walker & Susan Griffin, 2021. "Comparing smoking cessation to screening and brief intervention for alcohol in distributional cost effectiveness analysis to explore the sensitivity of results to socioeconomic inequalities characteri," Working Papers 184cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    17. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Fenna Arnoldussen & Mark J. Koetse & Sander M. de Bruyn & Onno Kuik, 2022. "What Are People Willing to Pay for Social Sustainability? A Choice Experiment among Dutch Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    20. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Catherine Haighton & Andrew Bryant & Frauke Becker & Melanie Steer & Sarah Lawson & Terry Aspray & Eugene M G Milne & Luke Vale & Elaine McColl & Martin White, 2019. "Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and p," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-31, January.

    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:otg:wpaper:1006. 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: Janet Bryant (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etotanz.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.