Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lean Systems Approaches to Health Technology Assessment

A Patient-Focused Alternative to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many countries now use health technology assessment (HTA) to review new and emerging technologies, especially with regard to reimbursement, pricing and/or clinical guidelines. One of the common, but not universal, features of these systems is the use of economic evaluation, normally cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), to confirm that new technologies offer value for money. Many have criticised these systems as primarily being concerned with cost containment, rather than advancing the interests of patients or innovators. This paper calls into question the underlying principles of CEA by arguing that value in the healthcare system may in fact be unconstrained. It is suggested that ‘lean management principles’ can be used not only to trim waste from the health system, but as a method of creating real incentives for innovation and value creation. Following the lean paradigm, this value must be defined purely from the patients’ perspective, and the entire health system needs to work towards the creation of such value. This paper offers as a practical example a lean approach to HTA, arguing that such an approach would lead to better incentives for innovation in health, as well as more patient-friendly outcomes in the long run.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63: 121–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Draborg E., Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen P, et al. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of the health technology assessment.’ Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(1): 89–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weedon D. Health technology assessment in Australia. Med J Aust 1999; 171(10): 551–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada: a decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(3): 896–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gulacsi L, Boncz I, Drummond M. Issues for countries considering introducing the “fourth hurdle”: the case of Hungary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(3): 337–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Banta D. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 2001; 10: 29–37

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gelijns A, Brown L, Magnell C, et al. Evidence, politics and technological change. Health Aff 2005: 24(1): 29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siebert M, Clauss LC, Carlisle M, et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe: what must be considered. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 733–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Battista R, Hodge M. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflection for the millennium. CMAJ 1999; 160(10): 1464–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fulop N, Allen P, Clark A, Black N. From health technology assessment to research on the organization and delivery of health services: addressing the balance. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 155–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenberg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European study. Health Policy 2000; 52: 179–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice (economy & environment). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  13. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness ratios: in a league of their own. Health Policy 1994; 28: 133–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mooney G. Communitarian claims as an ethical basis for allocating health care resources. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 1171–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra welfarism? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1121–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ 1993; 2: 59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bridges, J. What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not another cost-effectiveness analysis! Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006; 6(1): 19–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 2003; 2(4): 213–24

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vogt F, Schwappach D, Bridges J. Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in health care, Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 24(5): 419–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bridges J. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23(4): 317–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bridges J, Stewart M, King M, van Gool K. Adapting portfolio theory for the evaluation of multiple investments in health with a multiplicative extension for treatment synergies. Eur J Health Econ 2002; 3(1): 47–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Womack J, Jones D. Lean thinking. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kilpatric J. Lean principles. Orem (UT): Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership, USA, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  26. Merkel B. Health technology assessment: a European Community perspective. Eurohealth 1999; 5(1): 39–41

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hailey D, Mennon D. A short history of INAHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 236–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 171–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Banta D, Oortwijn W, Cranovsky R. Health policy, health technology assessment, and screening in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 409–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 44–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor R. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: government agency perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 Suppl. 2: 33–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rutten F. HTA and policy from the economic perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20: 67–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Menon D. The science of health technology assessment — the economic perspective. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 8 Suppl. A: 17A–20A

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leys M. Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 65(3): 217–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 167–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schubert F. Health technology assessment. The pharmaceutical industry perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 184–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lothgren M, Ratcliffe M. Pharmaceutical industry’s perspective on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 97–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(4): 493–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Womack J, Jones D, Roos D. The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associated, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cook C, Graser J. Military airframe acquisition costs: the effect of lean manufacturing. RAND, MR-1325-AF. Santa Monica (CA): RAND, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson TH, Kaplan RS. Relevance lost: rise and fall or management accounting, Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  43. Klier T. Lean manufacturing: understanding a new manufacturing system. Chicago Fed Lett 1993; 67: 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mooney G. What else do we want from our health services? Soc Sci Med 1994; 39(2): 151–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Evans B, Simons D. The lean delivery road map. Cardiff, UK: Cardiff University, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  46. Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care, Am Econ Rev 1963; 53: 941–69

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bridges J, Sperling P. Increasing the efficiency and flexibility of capital funding for public and private hospitals, Aust Health Rev 2001; 24(2): 55–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sendi P, Al MJ, Gafni A, et al. Optimizing a portfolio of health care programs in the presence of uncertainty and constrained resources. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 2207–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bridges J. Understanding the risks associated with resource allocation decisions in health: an illustration of the importance of portfolio theory. Health Risk Soc 2004; 6(3): 257–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001; 10: 317–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bodenheimer T. High and rising health care costs. Part 1: seeking an explanation. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142(10): 847–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kent DM, Fendrick AM, Langa KM. New and dis-improved: on the evaluation and use of less effective medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2004; 24(3): 281–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 689, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205, USA

    John F. P. Bridges

Authors
  1. John F. P. Bridges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. P. Bridges.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bridges, J.F.P. Lean Systems Approaches to Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics 24 (Suppl 2), 101–109 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00011

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00011

Keywords

Search

Navigation