Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:01:52.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QUALITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

Martin Hua ,
Tristan Boonstra ,
Patrick J. Kelly ,
Andrew Wilson ,
Jonathan C. Craig  and
Angela C. Webster
Martin Hua
Affiliation:
Sydney School of Public Health, University of [email protected]
Tristan Boonstra
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Hospital
Patrick J. Kelly
Affiliation:
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Andrew Wilson
Affiliation:
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney; Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney
Jonathan C. Craig
Affiliation:
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Angela C. Webster
Affiliation:
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) makes recommendations to the Australian Government for funding health technologies under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). Differences in public, clinical, commercial, and political opinions on health expenditure emphasize the importance of defensible funding decisions. We aimed to evaluate the quality of health technology assessment (HTA) reports over time and among health technologies assessed for MSAC.

Main Outcome Measures: A cohort study was performed of HTA reports prepared for MSAC between 1998 and 2013. We measured the quality of HTA reports using reporting guidelines proposed by the European Collaboration for Assessment of Health Interventions. Individual component scores across eleven domains were calculated, and summed for an overall aggregate score. We used linear regression to investigate any change in quality over time and among the types of technologies assessed.

Results: We included 110 HTA reports. The safety (80 percent), effectiveness (84 percent), economic (74 percent), and organizational (99 percent) domains were better reported than the psychological, social, and ethical considerations (34 percent). The basic (75 percent), methodological (62 percent), background (82 percent), contextual (46 percent), status quo (54 percent), and technical information (66 percent) that framed each assessment were inconsistently reported. On average, overall quality scores increased by 2 percent (p < 0.001) per year, from approximately 60 percent to 80 percent over the 15-year period, with no significant difference among surgical, diagnostic or other nonpharmaceutical health technologies (p = 0.22).

Conclusions: HTA reports prepared for MSAC are a key tool in allocating scarce health resources. The overall quality of these reports has improved, but the reporting of specific domains and subthemes therein could be better addressed.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicinePolicy makingTechnology assessmentBenchmarkingBiomedical - standards
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , 2016 , pp. 315 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. The Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. [Online]. Melbourne; 2005. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/medical-technology/docs/finalreport (accessed February 23, 2014).Google Scholar
2. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. [Online]; 2013 http://www.inahta.net/hta (accessed January 10, 2013)Google Scholar
3. The Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Health technology assessment. [Online]. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/reimbursement-1 (accessed February 23, 2014).Google Scholar
4. Department of Health and Ageing. Review of health technology assessment in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; 2009.Google Scholar
5. Hailey, D. The history of health technology assessment in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):61–67.Google Scholar
6. The Australian Government Department of Health. Australian government 2012-13 health and ageing portfolio additional estimates statements. [Online]; 2013. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/F9D011B7B4DD0C0ECA257B09000BCBD2/$File/2012-13%20PAES%204%20Feb%202013%2017.08pm.pdf.v (accessed February 23, 2014).Google Scholar
7. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Medical Services Advisory Committee. [Online]; 2014. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us-lp-1 (accessed February 23, 2014).Google Scholar
8. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) terms of reference. [Online]; 2010 http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/msac-tor-1 (accessed February 23, 2014).Google Scholar
9. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Report of a review of the Medical Services Advisory Committee. Canberra: The Australian Government, Department of Health; 2005.Google Scholar
10. Van Der Weyden, MB, Armstrong, RM. Evidence and Australian health policy. Med J Aust. 2004;180:607–608.Google Scholar
11. Ware, RE, Francis, HW, Read, KE. The Australian government's review of positron emission tomography: Evidence-based policy-making in action. Med J Aust. 2004;180;627–632.Google Scholar
12. Petherick, ES, Villanueva, EV, Bryan, EJ, Dharmage, S. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee. Med J Aust. 2007;187:289–292.Google Scholar
13. Altman, DG, Simera, I, Hoey, J, Moher, D, Schulz, K. EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet. 2008;371:1149–1150.Google Scholar
14. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Placement of artificial bowel sphincters in the management of faecal incontinence. MSAC application 1023. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care; 1999.Google Scholar
16. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1–7.Google Scholar
17. Liberati, A, Sheldon, TA, Banta, HD. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Methodoloy: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186–219.Google Scholar
18. Gallego, G, Casey, R, Norman, R, Goodall, S. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: A qualitative study. Health Policy. 2011;102:152–158.Google Scholar
19. Johri, M, Lehoux, P. The Great Escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:179–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Chim, L, Kelly, PJ, Salkeld, G, Stockler, MR. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:463–475.Google Scholar
21. Drummond, M, Weatherly, H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments: If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1–12.Google Scholar
22. Department of Health and Ageing. Proposal for changes to the Medical Services Advisory Committee processes for applications for public funding. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; 2010.Google Scholar
23. Drummond, M, Neumann, P, Jonsson, B, Luce, B. Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:159–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. International Working Group for HTA Advancement; Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.Google Scholar