Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

A systematic review on current status of health technology reassessment: insights for South Korea

Authors: Hyun-Ju Seo, Ji Jeong Park, Seon Heui Lee

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To systematically investigate the current status and methodology of health technology reassessment (HTR) in various countries to draw insights for the healthcare system in South Korea.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted on the articles published between January 2000 and February 2015 on Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PubMed. The titles and abstracts of retrieved records were screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data related to HTR were extracted using a pre-standardised form. The review was conducted using narrative synthesis to understand and summarise the HTR process and policies.

Results

Forty five studies, conducted in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and the United States of America, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Informed by the literature review, and complemented by informant interviews, we focused on HTR activities in four jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Spain. There were similarities in the HTR processes, namely the use of existing health technology assessment agencies, reassessment candidate technology identification and priority setting, stakeholder involvement, support for reimbursement coverage, and implementation strategies. Considering the findings of the systematic review in the context of the domestic healthcare environment in Korea, an appropriate HTR model was developed. This model included four stages, those of identification, prioritisation, reassessment and decision.

Conclusions

Disinvestment and reinvestment through the HTR was used to increase the efficiency and quality of care to help patients receive optimal treatment. Based on the lessons learnt from other countries’ experiences, Korea should make efforts to establish an HTR process that optimises the National Healthcare Insurance system through revision of the existing Medical Service Act.
Literature
1.
2.
Leggett L, Noseworthy TW, Zarrabi M, et al. Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:220–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Noseworthy T, Clement F. Health technology reassessment: scope, methodology, & language. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:201–2.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ahn J, Kim G, Suh HS, Lee SM. Social values and healthcare priority setting in Korea. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):343–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
7.
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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Moss JR. Exploring policy-makers' perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:1–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
11.
Ruano Raviña AVGM, Varela Lema L, Cerdá Mota T, Ibargoyen Roteta N, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, et al. Identification, prioritisation and assessment of obsolete health technologies. A methodological guideline. Quality Plan for the National Health System. Galician Health Technology Assessment Agency. 2007. HTA Reports: avalia-t No. 2007/01. 2007.
12.
Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J. Guiding the process of health technology disinvestment. Health Policy. 2010;98:218–26.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, et al. Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36:148–52.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jonsson E. History of health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:42–52.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Henshall C, Schuller T, Mardhani-Bayne L. Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment". Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:203–10.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin TL, Hiller JE. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190:269–73.PubMed
18.
19.
20.
Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Joshi NPSF, Noseworthy TW. Reassessment of Health Technologies: Obsolescence and Waste. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.
22.
23.
Ibargoyen-Roteta NG-II, Asua J. Report on the development of the GuNFT Guideline. Guideline for Not Funding existing health Technologies in health care systems. Quality Plan for the NHS of the MHSP. Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba). 2009. Health Technology Assessment Reports: OSTEBA N° 2007/11.
24.
25.
Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, et al. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, Riitano DE, Hodgetts K, Street JM, Elshaug AG, ASTUTE Health Study Group. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Watt AM, Willis CD, Hodgetts K, et al. Engaging clinicians in evidence-based disinvestment: role and perceptions of evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:211–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Polisena J, Clifford T, Elshaug AG, et al. Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:174–84.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gerdvilaite J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvestment: overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. HTA- Projektbericht, vol. Nr. 57. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2011.
30.
Rooshenas L, Owen-Smith A, Hollingworth W, Badrinath P, Beynon C, Donovan JL. "I won't call it rationing…": an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:273–81.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, et al. Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:234–42.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. What counts and how to count it: physicians' constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2191–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Artells JJ, Peiro S, Meneu R. Barriers for introducing a health technology assessment organization to inform health care decision-making in the Spanish National Health System. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2014;88:217–31.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Peiró S. In healthcare, more or less, less is more: notes on healthcare disinvestment. Rev Esp Sanid Penit. 2014;16(3):68–74.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Mayer J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvesting from ineffective technologies: lessons learned from current programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:355–62.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Elshaug A, Hiller J, Tunis S, Moss J. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A systematic review on current status of health technology reassessment: insights for South Korea
Authors
Hyun-Ju Seo
Ji Jeong Park
Seon Heui Lee
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0152-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Financing and collaboration on research and development for nodding syndrome

Research

A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research

Review

Mental illness research in the Gulf Cooperation Council: a scoping review

Review

The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System

Research

Can evidence-based health policy from high-income countries be applied to lower-income countries: considering barriers and facilitators to an organ donor registry in Mumbai, India

Review

Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice