Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 36(2)

doi:10.1071/AH11032

Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Committee

	Contacts

	For Advertisers



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Instructions to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Call for Reviewers




	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with AHR

Connect with CP

Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment

Marion Haas ^A ^C, Jane Hall ^A, Rosalie Viney ^A and Gisselle Gallego ^B

^A Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email:jane.hall@chere.uts.edu.au, rosalie.viney@chere.uts.edu.au
^B Community Based Health Care Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. Email:gisselle.gallego@usyd.edu.au
^C Corresponding author. Email: marion.haas@chere.uts.edu.au

Australian Health Review 36(2) 148-152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH11032
Submitted: 11 April 2011 Accepted: 14 September 2011 Published: 25 May 2012





	PDF (101 KB) $25



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Healthcare technology is a two-edged sword - it offers new and better treatment to a wider range of people and, at the same time, is a major driver of increasing costs in health systems. Many countries have developed sophisticated systems of health technology assessment (HTA) to inform decisions about new investments in new healthcare interventions. In this paper, we question whether HTA is also the appropriate framework for guiding or informing disinvestment decisions.

In exploring the issues related to disinvestment, we first discuss the various HTA frameworks which have been suggested as a means of encouraging or facilitating disinvestment. We then describe available means of identifying candidates for disinvestment (comparative effectiveness research, clinical practice variations, clinical practice guidelines) and for implementing the disinvestment process (program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) and related techniques).

In considering the possible reasons for the lack of progress in active disinvestment, we suggest that HTA is not the right framework as disinvestment involves a different decision making context. The key to disinvestment is not just what to stop doing but how to make it happen - that is, decision makers need to be aware of funding disincentives.

What is known about this topic? Disinvestment is an increasingly popular topic amongst academics and policy makers. Most discussions focus on the need to increase disinvestment as a corollary of investment, the lack of overt disinvestment decisions and the use of a framework based on health technology assessment (HTA) to implement disinvestment.

What does this paper add? This paper focusses on the difficulties associated with deciding which technologies to disinvest in, and the problems in using an HTA framework to make such decisions, when disinvestment involves a different decision making context from that of investment.

What are the implications for practitioners? The key to disinvestment is not just what to stop doing but how to implement such decisions. Making it happen means being aware of funding disincentives.

References

[1] Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 7–9.
| CrossRef |

[2] Medical Benefits Reviews Task Group, Department of Health and Ageing. Development of a quality framework for the Medicare Benefits Schedule: discussion paper. April 2010. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

[3] Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2007; 4: 23–30.
| CrossRef |

[4] Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J, Benguria-Arrate G, Galnares-Cordero L. Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: possible sources for their identification. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 249–54.
| CrossRef |

[5] Goodman C. HTA 101 introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church, VA: Lewin Group; 2004.

[6] Pearson S, Littlejohns P. Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? J Health Serv Res Policy 2007; 12: 160–5.
| CrossRef |

[7] Kanavos P, Persson U, Drummond M. The future of health technology assessment in Europe. London: London School of Economics; 2008.

[8] Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009.

[9] Hailey D. HTA in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 61–7.
| CrossRef |

[10] Hughes D, Ferner R. New drugs for old: disinvestment and NICE. BMJ 2010; 340: 690–2.
| CrossRef |

[11] Giacomini M. The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law 1999; 24: 715–58.
| CAS |

[12] Frellsen MB, Kristensen FB. Technologies that are claimed useless or applied in a useless way should undergo HTA and be discarded from daily practice if proven so. Case: routinely performed chest x-ray at admission. Abstract. Health Technology Assessment International Conference. 2005. Rome.

[13] Pritec tool for obsolete health technologies. Available at http://www.pritectools.es/Controlador/documentosAction.php [Verified 20 August 2009].

[14] Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role. Pub. No. 2975. Washington DC: Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office; 2007.

[15] Academy Health. Incorporating costs into comparative effectiveness research. Washington DC: Academy Health; 2009.

[16] Institute of Medicine. Knowing what works: a roadmap for the nation. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

[17] Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Transl Med 2010; : 2.
| CrossRef |

[18] Sox HC. Comparative Effectiveness Research: a progress report. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153: 469–72.

[19] Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

[20] Hall J. Variations in health care costs and utilisation. Sydney: NSW Treasury; 2008.

[21] NHMRC. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Endorsed 1998. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1999.

[22] Mitton C, Peacock S, Donaldson C, Bate A. Using PBMA in health care priority setting: description, challenges and experience. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 121–7.

[23] Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, Haby M, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C. Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the assessing cost effectiveness (ACE) initiative. Expert Review in Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2008; 8: 593–617.
| CrossRef |

[24] Segal L, Mortimer D. A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006; 4: 6–14.
| CrossRef |

[25] Segal L, Chen Y. Priority setting models for health: the role for priority setting and a critique of alternative models. A summary. Centre for Health Program Evaluation Working Paper 119, 2001.

[26] Eager K, Garrett P, Lin V. Health planning: Australian perspectives. Sydney: Allen and Unwin; 2001.

[27] Segal L, Day S, Chapman A, Osborne R. Priority setting in osteoarthritis. Research Paper 12. Melbourne Health Economics Unit, Monash University, 2006.

[28] Segal L, Day SE, Chapman A, Osborne R. Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? Med J Aust 2004; 180: S11–7.

[29] Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance. Rewarding provider performance: aligning incentives in Medicare. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2007.

[30] Department of Health. Using the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework. London: Department of Health; 2008.

[31] Rosenthal MB, Fernandopulle R, Song HR, Landon BE. Paying for quality: providers’ incentives for quality improvement. Health Aff 2004; 23: 127–41.
| CrossRef |

[32] Duckett S, Daniels S, Kamp M, Stockwell A, Walker G, Ward M. Pay for performance in Australia: Queensland’s new Clinical Practice Improvement Payment. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13: 174–7.
| CrossRef |

[33] Dudley RA, Frolich A, Robinowitz DL, Talavera JA, Broadhead P, Luft HS. Strategies to support quality-based purchasing: a review of the evidence. AHRQ Publication No. 04–0057. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality; 2004.

[34] Mullen KJ, Frank RG, Rosenthal MB. Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. Rand J Econ 2010; 41: 64–91.
| CrossRef |

[35] Gravelle H, Sutton M, Ma A. Doctor behaviour under a pay for performance contract: treating, cheating and case finding? Econ J 2010; 120: F129–56.
| CrossRef |

[36] Hall J. Medicare Select: a bold reform? Aust Econ Rev 2010; 43: 63–70.
| CrossRef |

[37] Shortell SM, Casalino LP, Fisher ES. How the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation should test accountable care organizations. Health Aff 2010; 29: 1293–8.
| CrossRef |

Subscriber Login

	Username: Password:

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help