A Model for Priority Setting in Health Technology Innovation Policy
Main Article Content
Keywords
Innovation, Priority Setting, Assessment, health technology, medical technology, regulation, development
Abstract
Health Technology Assessment focuses on equal appraisal of health technologies introduced into the market. This has made regulators and the governance of innovation reactive and dependent on the initiatives innovators take for technology development, thus making it supply driven. The policy makers’ role has become one of appraising technologies that are already developed rather than guiding the development agenda. This severely limits the possibility to ensure that health technologies sufficiently address major issues such as burden of disease, trade deficit and health inequalities. It places governments outside of the actor arena that co-shapes technologies in the early stages, restricting the involvement to facilitating scale up or not. It makes it hard to achieve health technology governance practices that maximally contribute to ensure technological developments that actually address public concerns. What is the potential of frameworks for changing this dynamics and how can evidence shape technology development agenda’s without falling into the traps of regulator lock-in or social engineering? The methodology presented in this study takes first but important steps towards an evidence based framework for priority setting to guide innovations, particularly in health and social sectors
Downloads
Abstract 1583 | PDF Downloads 687
References
2.Amiri A and Ventelou B.2012Granger causality between total expenditure on health and GDP in OECD: Evidence from the Toda–Yamamoto approach. Econom Lett 2012;116(3):541–44.
3.Kelman CW, Bass AJ, Holman CDJ. Research use of linked health data — a best practice protocol. Aust N Z J Pub Health 2007;26(3):251–55.
4.Kim JY. Data for better health—and to help end poverty. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2055.
5.Pope C and Mays N. Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995;311(6996):42.
6.Murray CJL and Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mor-tality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997;349(9064):1498–504.
7.Murray CJL, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2197–23.
8.Lim SS, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2224–60.
9.Mahal A and Karan AK. Diffusion of medical tech-nology: medical devices in India. Exp Rev Med Dev 2009;6(2):197–205.
10.Mahal A, Varshney A and Taman S. Diffusion of diag-nostic medical devices and policy implications for India. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22(2):184–90.
11.Thatte U, et al. Evidence-based decision on medical technologies in Asia Pacific: Experiences from India, Malaysia, Philippines, and Pakistan. Value Health 2009;12(s3):S18–S25.
12.Chakravarthi I. Medical equipment industry in India: Production, procurement and utilization. Indian J Pub Health 2013;57(4):203–207.
13.Kinra S, et al. Sociodemographic patterning of non-communicable disease risk factors in rural India: a cross sectional study. BMJ 2010;341:c4974.
14.Chan M. From new estimates to better data. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2054.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author(s) must obtain all parties consent [co-author(s), others if applicable] and submit the acceptance of Copyright Agreement with their paper. Written permission must be obtained by the author for material that has been published in copyrighted material; this includes tables, figures, and quoted text that exceeds 150 words. A copy of all permissions must accompany the manuscript when published in copyrighted material. The author(s) hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. Author(s) must clearly indicate that approval for publication has been received in cases of institutional ownership.
In all submitted material authors retain all copyrights; however, the GlobalCE Journal reserve the right to reprint all or portions of the article and to post all or part of the article online. GlobalCE Journal reserves the right to edit manuscripts as required to publish in the journal. Authors are responsible for obtaining any and all clearances as appropriate. Unless stated otherwise, all articles are open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and original work (e.g. first published in the Global Clinical Engineering Journal) is properly cited with the original URL and bibliographic citation information. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on www.Globalce.org well as the copyright and license information must be included. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
