Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices

The economic and fiscal impact of incremental use of cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine for the prevention of seasonal influenza among healthcare workers in Italy

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza has a significant impact on public health, generating substantial direct healthcare costs, production losses and fiscal effects. Understanding these consequences is crucial to effective decision-making and the development of preventive strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the economic and the fiscal impact of implementing an incremental strategy for seasonal influenza prevention using the cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Italy.

METHODS

To estimate the economic impact of implementing this strategy, we performed a cost analysis that considered direct healthcare costs, productivity losses and fiscal impact. The analysis considered a 3-year time horizon. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Assuming a vaccination coverage rate of 30% among HCWs, the analysis considered a total of 203 018 vaccinated subjects. On analysing the overall differential impact (including direct costs, indirect costs and fiscal impact), implementing QIVc vaccination as a preventative measure against influenza among HCWs in Italy would yield societal resource savings of €23 638.78 in the first year, €47 277.56 in the second year, and €70 916.35 in the third year, resulting in total resource savings of €141 832.69.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated that implementing the incremental use of QIVc as part of a preventive strategy for seasonal influenza among HCWs in Italy could yield positive economic outcomes, especially in terms of indirect costs and fiscal impact. The resources saved could be utilized to fund further public health interventions. Policy-makers should consider these findings when making decisions regarding influenza prevention strategies targeting HCWs.

Screening of Precancerous Lesions in Women with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection by Molecular Typing and MicroRNA Analysis

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is causatively associated with cervical cancer, the fourth most common malignant disease of women worldwide: (1) The aim of the proposed study is to implement routine diagnostics of HPV precancerous cervical lesions by introducing new molecular diagnostic tools. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study with a total of twenty-two formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cervical samples of various sample type (nine biopsy and thirteen conization) each patient had a previous abnormal results of pap test or HPV DNA test. Genotyping, viral load and co-infections were determined. For each patient, the individual expression of 2549 microRNAs were evaluated by microarray and qPCR. (3) Results: Our data demonstrates that the microRNAs were commonly expressed in tissues biopsies. miR 4485-5p, miR4485-3p and miR-4497 were highly down-regulated in tissue biopsies with HPV precancerous cervical lesions. (4) Conclusions: the introduction of a microRNA analysis panel can improve early diagnosis, understand the nature of the lesion and, consequently, improve the clinical management of patients with HPV precancerous cervical lesions.

HTA Training for Healthcare Professionals: International Overview of Initiatives Provided by HTA Agencies and Organizations

Background

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process that synthesizes, with a systematic, transparent, impartial and robust methodological approach, the main information on the medical, economic, ethical and social implications of the use and dissemination of a health technology. Its aim is to support decision-makers in identifying safe, effective, patient-centered and best-value health policies, in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system. Given the continued application of innovative technologies into clinical practice, healthcare professionals need to be able to adequately evaluate these technologies using evidence-based approaches such as HTA. Therefore, the implementation of training in HTA is crucial. The aim of this study was to investigate existing HTA training initiatives for healthcare professionals provided by international HTA agencies and organizations around the world.

Methods

From March to November 2020, the websites of HTA agencies and organizations belonging to the European network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and to the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), and the website of the HTA International (HTAi), were explored for identifying the HTA training initiatives directed to healthcare professionals. In addition, we screened the training initiatives proposed at European level by EUnetHTA as part of its Joint Actions and conducted in collaboration with its public-private partners. Specific keywords were searched in English and adapted to French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and German. Data extraction of the retrieved training initiatives was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021 and considered the following information: agency, country, website, coordinator, type of initiative, target, topic, main contents, and language.

Results

Out of 124 agencies/organizations/EUnetHTA public-private partners screened, only 21 provided training initiatives for healthcare professionals. A total of 55 training initiatives were analyzed, 85.5% of which were delivered at the European level and 14.5% at the international level. The countries with a greater number of courses were: Austria, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Twenty-one training initiatives focused on HTA application and methodology while 34 on specific HTA domains, particularly on the economic one. The technologies covered were mainly drugs.

Conclusions

Our study revealed a limited number of HTA training programs targeting healthcare professionals. HTA supports the decision-making processes concerning the use and application of health technologies with scientific evidence. Indeed, training of healthcare professionals in this field should be a key driver in implementing evidence-based healthcare choices and through rigorous methodological approaches such as HTA, in order to ensure proper health governance and value-based application of technological innovations in clinical practice. Therefore, capacity building of healthcare professionals in this area should be enhanced by using appropriate and effective training initiatives and educational strategies.

Recommendations to drive a value-based decision-making on vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Health systems worldwide need to pay attention to both sustainability and quality. The explosion of health technologies represents a challenge for health systems' sustainability, and evidence-based tools should support resources allocation to guarantee a continuous quality improvement. The value-based approach could disentangle the full benefit of a health technology, and this is of utmost importance in the vaccination field because of several obstacles still existing in reaching optimal vaccination uptake.

AREAS COVERED

The paper conveys the evidence on the full value of vaccine(s)/vaccination based on the framework suggested by the Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health of the European Commission. Indeed, evidence on the personal, technical, allocative, and societal value of vaccine(s)/vaccination published in the last decade was described as foundation of a following consultation with international experts of the field. The result was the issuing of recommendations for research, decision-making, and public engagement that aimed to drive a value-based decision-making on vaccination.

EXPERT OPINION

The development of vaccination programs based on the recognition of the full value of vaccine(s)/vaccination is essential. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to launch intersectoral and multidisciplinary research and implementation initiatives involving all relevant stakeholders.

Educating health professionals to implement evidence-based falls screening in hospitals

OBJECTIVE

International evidence-based guidelines advise traditional Falls Risk Assessment Tools (FRATs) should not be routinely used to predict the risk of a patient falling in hospital. However, disinvestment from existing services can be challenging. This study applied evidence-based approaches to education design to implement best practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Mixed methods using questionnaires to evaluate health professionals' knowledge of evidence-based falls risk assessment and mitigation, followed by semi-structured interviews with individual health professionals.

SETTING

Five Australian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

There were two cohorts per hospital; Cohort 1 (C1) comprised 10 clinical leaders from nursing and allied health professions. Cohort 2 (C2) included clinicians involved in routine hospital falls screening and prevention.

METHODS

46 clinical leaders received a 3-h high quality education workshop on the latest evidence in hospital falls risk assessment and how to implement a new falls screening and management tool. They were also taught the practical skills to deliver a 1-h education session to C2 (n = 129).

RESULTS

The education workshop significantly changed C1's views about evidence-based guidelines for falls screening and prevention. C1 were significantly more likely than C2 to feel confident in assessing falls risk and judging and implementing the best mitigation strategies. After the workshop, C1 were prepared and motivated to educate others on falls prevention and were satisfied with the skills gained. Six months after the workshop, C1 reported feeling more prepared for preventing falls.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals benefitted from an interactive education workshop on how to use a new evidence-based hospital falls screening tool to help mitigate risk. An abridged version of the workshop did not result in long lasting effects. Education is an important element aiding disinvestment from non-evidence-based services, and implementation of clinical guidelines.

Internal barriers to efficiency: why disinvestments are so difficult. Identifying and addressing internal barriers to disinvestment of health technologies

Although efficiency is a core concept in health economics, its impact on health care practice still is modest. Despite an increased pressure on resource allocation, a widespread use of low-value care is identified. Nonetheless, disinvestments are rare. Why is this so? This is the key question of this paper: why are disinvestments not more prevalent and improving the efficiency of the health care system, given their sound foundation in health economics, their morally important rationale, the significant evidence for a long list of low-value care and available alternatives? Although several external barriers to disinvestments have been identified, this paper looks inside us for mental mechanisms that hamper rational assessment, implementation, use and disinvestment of health technologies. Critically identifying and assessing internal inclinations, such as cognitive biases, affective biases and imperatives, is the first step toward a more rational handling of health technologies. In order to provide accountable and efficient care we must engage in the quest against the figments of our minds; to disinvest in low-value care in order to provide high-value health care.

Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.

Objectives

Our objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.

Design

A realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.

Participants

In total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.

Data sources

Using keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.

Results

The concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.

Limitations

Some specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.

Conclusions

This review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Conceptualising characteristics of resources withdrawal from medical services: a systematic qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Terms used to describe government-led resource withdrawal from ineffective and unsafe medical services, including 'rationing' and 'disinvestment', have tended to be used interchangeably, despite having distinct characteristics. This lack of descriptive precision for arguably distinct terms contributes to the obscurity that hinders effective communication and the achievement of evidence-based decision-making. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the various terms used to describe resource withdrawal and (2) propose definitions for the key or foundational terms, which includes a clear description of the unique characteristics of each.

METHODS

This is a systematic qualitative synthesis of characteristics and terms found through a search of the academic and grey literature. This approach involved identifying commonly used resource withdrawal terms, extracting data about resource withdrawal characteristics associated with each term and conducting a comparative analysis by categorising elements as antecedents, attributes or outcomes.

RESULTS

Findings from an analysis of 106 documents demonstrated that terms used to describe resource withdrawal are inconsistently defined and applied. The characteristics associated with these terms, mainly antecedents and attributes, are used interchangeably by many authors but are differentiated by others. Our analysis resulted in the development of a framework that organises these characteristics to demonstrate the unique attributes associated with each term. To enhance precision, these terms were classified as either policy options or patient health outcomes and refined definitions for rationing and disinvestment were developed. Rationing was defined as resource withdrawal that denies, on average, patient health benefits. Disinvestment was defined as resource withdrawal that results in, on average, improved or no change in health benefits.

CONCLUSION

Agreement on the definition of various resource withdrawal terms and their key characteristics is required for transparent government decision-making regarding medical service withdrawal. This systematic qualitative synthesis presents the proposed definitions of resource withdrawal terms that will promote consistency, benefit public policy dialogue and enhance the policy-making process for health systems.

Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review

Background

Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches.

Results

This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed.

Conclusions

This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed.

Trial Registration

This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

Therapeutic equivalence program: continued economic benefits in the context of rising costs and increased demand

Objective The aim of this study was to describe the effect of a therapeutic equivalence program (TEP) in achieving financial sustainability from 2010-11 to 2014-15. Methods A TEP was introduced at Monash Health in 2006-07. Therapeutic medicine classes for inclusion were selected by stakeholder consensus and a preferred medicine for each class was chosen based upon therapeutic equivalence and cost considerations. New patients were commenced on a preferred medicine, but patients already prescribed another medicine from the same therapeutic class were not automatically switched to the preferred medicine. Data was obtained retrospectively from the pharmacy dispensing system, including the purchasing and issuing of all medicines from the preferred medicine classes. The prescribing patterns for preferred and comparator medicines were used as a measure of acceptance of the TEP, along with the savings produced by the program. Results Over the 5-year evaluation period, 18 therapeutic classes were targeted, including seven new classes. Six therapeutic classes from the 11 included in the TEP before 2010-11 were removed throughout the evaluation period when the comparative economic benefits were no longer present. The use of all preferred medicines increased following implementation and a total of AU$7.38million was saved from 2010-11 to 2014-15 and AU$10.54million across 2006-07 to 2014-15. Conclusions This paper provides an update on the progress of the TEP at Monash Health and outlines additional learnings gained. The market dynamics for pharmaceuticals means ongoing maintenance and review of the therapeutic medicine classes targeted is important to enable continued economic benefits. What is known about the topic? There is continued and increasing focus on efficient, cost-effective and financially sustainable medication management. There is limited information available on strategies that can be implemented at a health service level. What does this paper add? The TEP has resulted in sustained savings. The market dynamics for pharmaceuticals means ongoing maintenance and review of the therapeutic classes targeted is important to enable continued economic benefits. What are the implications for practitioners? TEP is a process of genuine disinvestment. Identification and resolution of critical factors in the success of the program may assist implementation at other health services.

Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment

There is growing interest among pharmaceutical policymakers in how to "disinvest" from subsidized medicines. This is due to both the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the increasing use of accelerated and conditional reimbursement pathways which mean that medicines are being subsidized on the basis of less robust evidence of safety and efficacy. It is crucial that disinvestment decisions are morally sound and socially legitimate, but there is currently no framework to facilitate this. We therefore reviewed the bioethics literature in order to identify ethical principles and concepts that might be relevant to pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. This revealed a number of key ethical considerations-both procedural and substantive-that need to be considered when making pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. These principles do not, however, provide practical guidance so we present a framework outlining how they might be applied to different types of disinvestment decisions. We also argue that, in this context, even the most rigorous ethical reasoning is likely to be overridden by moral intuitions and psychological biases and that disinvestment decisions will need to strike the right balance between respecting justifiable moral intuitions and overriding unjustifiable psychological impulses.

An evidence-based framework for identifying technologies of no or low-added value (NLVT)

OBJECTIVE

To synthetize the state of the art of methods for identifying candidate technologies for disinvestment and propose an evidence-based framework for executing this task.

METHODS

An interpretative review was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed to identify secondary or tertiary research related to disinvestment initiatives and/or any type of research that specifically described one or more methods for identifying potential candidates technologies, services, or practices for disinvestment. An iterative and critical analysis of the methods described alongside the disinvestment initiatives was performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen systematic reviews on disinvestment or related terms (health technology reassessment or medical reversal) were retrieved and methods of 45 disinvestment initiatives were compared. On the basis of this evidence, we proposed a new framework for identifying these technologies based on the wide definition of evidence provided by Lomas et al. The framework comprises seven basic approaches, eleven triggers and thirteen methods for applying these triggers, which were grouped in embedded and ad hoc methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Although identification methods have been described in the literature and tested in different contexts, the proliferation of terms and concepts used to describe this process creates considerable confusion. The proposed framework is a rigorous and flexible tool that could guide the implementation of strategies for identifying potential candidates for disinvestment.

Collective constructions of 'waste': epistemic practices for disinvestment in the context of Dutch social health insurance

Background

Faced with growing budget pressure, policymakers worldwide recognize the necessity of strategic disinvestment from ineffective, inefficient or harmful medical practices. However, disinvestment programs face substantial social, political and cultural challenges: mistrust, struggles for clinical autonomy or stakeholders’ reluctance to engage in what can be perceived as ‘rationing’. Academic literature says little about effective strategies to address these challenges. This paper provides insights on this matter. We analyzed the epistemic work of a group of policymakers at the National Health Care Institute on what was initially a disinvestment initiative within the context of the Dutch basic benefits package: the ‘Appropriate Care’ program. The Institute developed a strategy using national administrative data to identify and tackle low-value care covered from public funds as well as potential underuse, and achieve savings through improved organization of efficiency and quality in health care delivery. How did the Institute deal with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by means of their epistemic work?

Method

We conducted ethnographic research into the National Health Care Institute’s epistemic practices. Research entailed document analysis, non-participant observation, in-depth conversations, and interviews with key-informants.

Results

The Institute dealt with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by democratizing the epistemic practices to identify low-value care, by warranting data analysis by clinical experts, by creating an epistemic safe space for health care professionals who were the object of research into low-value care, and by de-emphasizing the economization measure. Ultimately, this epistemic work facilitated a collaborative construction of problems relating to low-value care practices and their solutions.

Conclusions

This case shows that – apart from the right data and adequate expertise – disinvestment requires clinical leadership and political will on the part of stakeholders. Our analysis of the Institute’s Appropriate Care program shows how the epistemic effort to identify low-value care became a co-construction between policymakers, care providers, patients and insurers of problems of ‘waste’ in Dutch social health insurance. This collective epistemic work gave cognitive, moral and political standing to the idea of ‘waste’ in public health expenditure.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4434-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding Health Professional Responses to Service Disinvestment: A Qualitative Study

Background: Disinvestment from inefficient health services may be a potential solution to rising healthcare costs, but there has been poor uptake of disinvestment recommendations. This Australian study aims to understand how health professionals react when confronted with a plan to disinvest from a health service they previously provided to their patients.

Methods: This qualitative study took place prior to the disinvestment phase of a trial which removed weekend allied health services from acute hospital wards, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the service. Observations and focus groups were used to collect data from 156 participants which was analysed thematically.

Results: Initial reactions to the disinvestment were almost universally negative, with staff extremely concerned about the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and planning ways to circumvent the trial. Removal of existing services was perceived as a loss and created a direct threat to some clinicians’ professional identity. With time, discussion, and understanding of the project’s context, some staff moved towards acceptance and perceived the trial as an opportunity, particularly given the service was to be reinstated after the disinvestment.

Conclusion: Clinicians and health service managers are protective of the services they deliver and can create barriers to disinvestment. Even when services are removed to ascertain their value, health professionals may continue to provide services to their patients. Measuring the impact of the disinvestment may assist staff to accept the removal of a service.

Disinvestment in cancer care: a survey investigating European countries' opinions and views

Background

The current economic context calls for rationalizing health resources that can be pursued through disinvestment from low value health technologies to invest in the best performing ones, ensuring high healthcare quality. Oncology is a field where, because of high costs of health technologies and rapid innovation, disinvestment is crucial.

Methods

On this basis, the research team investigated through a survey, based on a questionnaire, opinions and views of representatives of European countries about disinvestment, in terms of fields of application, potential advocates and barriers, specifically focusing on cancer care.

Results

A total of 17 questionnaires were filled in (response rate: 32.1%). The survey showed disinvestment is applied in several countries as a tool for containing health care expenditures and identifying obsolete technologies/ineffective interventions. Clinicians' resistance to change and industries' opposition are recognized as the most important barriers to the implementation of disinvestment policies. Potential targets of disinvestment in cancer are seen in diagnostic and therapeutic areas.

Conclusion

Despite the agreement on fields of waste and of disinvestment policies, operational methods to put disinvestment in place are lacking. Since they should rely on an inclusive assessment of the technology, Health Technology Assessment may represent a good approach.

Costs will rather increase

Purpose

The purpose of this paper was to study the unfolding of an urgent and extensive decommissioning program in Sweden, focusing on the public’s reactions and their arguments when opposing the decommissioning activities.

Design/methodology/approach

The public’s responses were studied through local media. Its content was surveyed and divided into actions and arguments. The arguments were further analyzed and categorized into inductively developed themes.

Findings

Protest activities, such as demonstrations, meetings and petitions, were not coordinated, but mostly carried out for withdrawals of unique services and services in remote areas. The public questioned the decision makers’ information, calculations and competence, the adequacy of the consequence analyses and whether the decommissioning activities would lead to any real savings. Patient and public safety, the vulnerable in society, and effects on the local areas were important topics. Thus, it seems the decision makers did not fully succeed in communicating the demonstrable benefits or create clarity of the rationales for decommissioning the particular services. Furthermore, it seems the public has a more inclusive approach to health services and their value compared to decision makers that need to keep the budget.

Originality/value

Decommissioning is an emerging field of research, and this study of the unfolding of an urgent and extensive decommissioning program contributes with evidence that may improve decommissioning policy and practice. The study illustrates that it may be possible to implement a decommissioning program despite public protest, but that the longer-term effects on the health system’s legitimacy need to be studied.

Disinvestment in healthcare: an overview of HTA agencies and organizations activities at European level

Background

In an era of a growing economic pressure for all health systems, the interest for “disinvestment” in healthcare increased. In this context, evidence based approaches such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) are needed both to invest and to disinvest in health technologies. In order to investigate the extent of application of HTA in this field, methodological projects/frameworks, case studies, dissemination initiatives on disinvestment released by HTA agencies and organizations located in Europe were searched.

Methods

In July 2015, the websites of HTA agencies and organizations belonging to the European network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) were accessed and searched through the use of the term “disinvestment”. Retrieved deliverables were considered eligible if they reported methodological projects/frameworks, case studies and dissemination initiatives focused on disinvestment in healthcare.

Results

62 HTA agencies/organizations were accessed and eight methodological projects/frameworks, one case study and one dissemination initiative were found starting from 2007. With respect to methodological projects/frameworks, two were delivered in Austria, one in Italy, two in Spain and three in U.K. As for the case study and the dissemination initiative, both came from U.K. The majority of deliverables were aimed at making an overview of existing disinvestment approaches and at identifying challenges in their introduction.

Conclusions

Today, in a healthcare context characterized by resource scarcity and increasing service demand, “disinvestment” from low-value services and reinvestment in high-value ones is a key strategy that may be supported by HTA. The lack of evaluation of technologies in use, in particular at the end of their lifecycle, may be due to the scant availability of frameworks and guidelines for identification and assessment of obsolete technologies that was shown by our work. Although several projects were carried out in different countries, most remain constrained to the field of research. Disinvestment is a relatively new concept in HTA that could pose challenges also from a methodological point of view. To tackle these challenges, it is necessary to construct experiences at international level with the aim to develop new methodological approaches to produce and grow evidence on disinvestment policies and practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2941-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

BACKGROUND

This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

DATA SOURCES

We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.

RESULTS

The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish^® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Understanding frailty: a qualitative study of European healthcare policy-makers' approaches to frailty screening and management

OBJECTIVE

To elicit European healthcare policy-makers' views, understanding and attitudes about the implementation of frailty screening and management strategies and responses to stakeholders' views.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis of semistructured qualitative interviews.

SETTING

European healthcare policy departments.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven European healthcare policy-makers representing the European Union (n=2), UK (n=2), Italy (n=1), Spain (n=1) and Poland (n=1). Participants were sourced through professional networks and the European Commission Authentication Service website and were required to be in an active healthcare policy or decision-making role.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified. Our findings reveal a 'knowledge gap', around frailty and awareness of the malleability of frailty, which has resulted in restricted ownership of frailty by specialists. Policy-makers emphasised the need to recognise frailty as a clinical syndrome but stressed that it should be managed via an integrated and interdisciplinary response to chronicity and ageing. That is, through social co-production. This would require a culture shift in care with redeployment of existing resources to deliver frailty management and intervention services. Policy-makers proposed barriers to a culture shift, indicating a need to be innovative with solutions to empower older adults to optimise their health and well-being, while still fully engaging in the social environment. The cultural acceptance of an integrated care system theme described the complexities of institutional change management, as well as cultural issues relating to working democratically, while in signposting adult care, the need for a personal navigator to help older adults to access appropriate services was proposed. Policy-makers also believed that screening for frailty could be an effective tool for frailty management.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for frailty to be managed in a more integrated and person-centred manner, overcoming the challenges associated with niche ownership within the healthcare system. There is also a need to raise its profile and develop a common understanding of its malleability among stakeholders, as well as consistency in how and when it is measured.

PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION

BACKGROUND

The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps.

METHODS

The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps.

RESULTS

The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

STATUS OF DISINVESTMENT INITIATIVES IN LATIN AMERICA: RESULTS FROM A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND A QUESTIONNAIRE

Objectives: Disinvestment of existing healthcare technologies that deliver low or no health benefit for their cost can be used as a tool to improve access to effective technologies, while ensuring the long-term sustainability of healthcare systems. The objective of this research was to identify disinvestment initiatives in Latin American countries (LAC).

Methods: First, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. In February 2015, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and LILACS were searched for relevant journal articles, including terms related to “disinvestment,” “reallocation,” “obsolete technologies,” and “Latin America.” Additionally, a manual search of documents from Latin American health technology assessment agencies was performed. Second, an online questionnaire was sent to experts in LAC to assess whether unpublished real-life disinvestment initiatives exist. Questionnaire results were collected in September 2015.

Results: From the SLR, 350 records were selected for screening following de-duplication and eleven articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. Only two of these reported information on initiatives potentially identifiable as disinvestment-investment activities in Brazil and Peru. Nine respondents completed the questionnaire, and four reported that disinvestment initiatives had been conducted in their respective organizations in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. This lack of agreement between the SLR and the questionnaire responses shows that disinvestment initiatives are ongoing, despite being under reported.

Conclusions: Many challenges need to be overcome for a disinvestment initiative to be successful, and sharing particular experiences with the international community would increase the chances of positive outcomes. The present study highlights the need for publication of such experiences in LAC.

DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVES

Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DISINVESTMENT WORLDWIDE: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE DETERMINANTS

Objectives:In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in health technology disinvestment. A disinvestment process should involve all relevant stakeholders to identify and deliver the most effective, safe, and cost-effective healthcare interventions. The aim of the present study was to describe the state of the art of health technology disinvestment around the world and to identify parameters that could be associated with the implementation of disinvestment programs.

Methods:A systematic review of the literature was performed from database inception to November 2014, together with the collection of original data on socio-economic indicators from forty countries.

Results:Overall, 1,456 records (1,199 from electronic databases and 257 from other sources) were initially retrieved. After analyzing 172 full text articles, 38 papers describing fifteen disinvestment programs/experiences in eight countries were included. The majority (12/15) of disinvestment programs began after 2006. As expected, these programs were more common in developed countries, 63 percent of which had a Beveridge model healthcare system. The univariate analysis showed that countries with disinvestment programs had a significantly higher level of Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product per capita, public expenditure on health and social services, life expectancy at birth and a lower level of infant mortality rate, and of perceived corruption. The existence of HTA agencies in the country was a strong predictor (p= .034) for the development of disinvestment programs.

Conclusions:The most significant variables in the univariate analysis were connected by a common factor, potentially related to the overall development stage of the country.

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

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.

Bioethics, health technology reassessment, and management

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is an emerging area of health services and policy research that supports optimal management of technologies throughout their lifecycle. As a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, economic, social, and ethical impacts of existing technologies, HTR is a means of achieving optimal use, managed exit, and better value for money from technologies used in healthcare. This has been documented as raising ethical concerns among clinicians who are providing direct patient care, particularly when managed exit may be the goal. This article discusses the ethical considerations relevant to clinicians and HTR, using a principles' approach to bioethical decision-making.

La bioéthique, la réévaluation des technologies de la santé et la gestion

La réévaluation des technologies de la santé (RTS), ce domaine émergent des services de santé et des recherches stratégiques, favorise la prise en charge optimale des technologies pendant toute leur vie utile. La RTS, qui est une évaluation structurée et fondée sur des données probantes des effets cliniques, économiques, sociaux et éthiques des technologies en place, permet de faire une utilisation optimale de ces technologies, d'en prévoir le retrait progressif et de mieux rentabiliser celles qui sont utilisées dans le milieu de la santé. Elle soulève des préoccupations éthiques chez les cliniciens qui prodiguent des soins directs aux patients, particulièrement lorsqu'elle vise un retrait progressif. Le présent article porte sur les considérations éthiques applicables aux cliniciens et à la RTS, selon une approche de la prise de décision bioéthique axée sur les principes.

Citizens' Perspectives on Disinvestment from Publicly Funded Pathology Tests: A Deliberative Forum

BACKGROUND

Deliberative forums can be useful tools in policy decision making for balancing citizen voice and community values against dominant interests.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a deliberative forum to explore community perspectives on a complex health problem-disinvestment.

METHODS

A deliberative forum of citizens was convened in Adelaide, South Australia, to develop criteria to support disinvestment from public funding of ineffective pathology tests. The case study of potential disinvestment from vitamin B12/folate pathology testing was used to shape the debate. The forum was informed by a systematic review of B12/folate pathology test effectiveness and expert testimony.

RESULTS

The citizens identified seven criteria: cost of the test, potential impact on individual health/capacity to benefit, potential cost to society, public good, alternatives to testing, severity of the condition, and accuracy of the test. The participants not only saw these criteria as an interdependent network but also questioned "the authority" of policymakers to make these decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherence between the criteria devised by the forum and those described by an expert group was considerable, the major differences being that the citizens did not consider equity issues and the experts neglected the "cost" of social and emotional impact of disinvestment on users and the society.

Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed 'related articles' function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65%) were original research with the majority (59%) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption-the most frequently cited was "disinvest" (39% of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50%), followed by identifying low-value practices (47%), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40%). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16% to 46%, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41%) that demonstrate harm (73%) and/or lack of efficacy (63%) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices.

FROM TALK TO ACTION: POLICY STAKEHOLDERS, APPROPRIATENESS, AND SELECTIVE DISINVESTMENT

Objectives: There is widespread commitment—at least in principle—to “evidence-informed” clinical practice and policy development in health care. The intention is that only “appropriate” care ought to be delivered at public expense. Although the rationale for an appropriateness agenda is widely endorsed, and methods have been proposed for addressing it, few published studies exist of contemporary policy initiatives which have actually led to successful disinvestment. Our objective was to explore whether the direct involvement of policy stakeholders could advance appropriateness and disinvestment.

Methods: Several collaborative engagements with policy stakeholders were undertaken to adapt and combine conceptual and empirical material related to appropriateness and disinvestment from the literature to create tools and processes for use in Canada and the province of Ontario in particular.

Results: By combining inputs from the literature with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, a definition of appropriateness was developed and, importantly, endorsed by all the provincial and territorial ministers of health in Canada. Second, a reassessment framework was successfully implemented for identifying priorities for selective disinvestment.

Conclusions: When scientific evidence was combined with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, progress was made on the design and successful implementation of policies for appropriateness and disinvestment.

Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible

Background: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is “a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical, and economic effects of a technology currently used in the healthcare system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives.” The purpose of this study is to describe the key themes in the context of current HTR activities and propose a way forward for this newly emerging field.

Methods: Data were gathered from a workshop held as part of the 2012 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) symposium. The workshop consisted of two panel presentations followed by discussion; data gathered, including presentations and rich audience discussion transcripts, were analyzed for key themes emerging in the field of HTR using constant comparative analysis.

Results: The language chosen to describe HTR will set the tone for engagement. The identification of champions at multiple levels and political will are essential. Key lessons from international experience are: disinvestment is difficult, focus on clinical areas not specific technologies, identify clear goals of the HTR agenda. Six key themes were identified to move the HTR agenda forward: emphasize integration over segregation, focus on development of HTR methods and processes, processes are context-specific but lessons must be shared, build capacity in synergistic interdisciplinary fields, develop meaningful stakeholder engagement, strengthen postimplementation monitoring and evaluation.

Conclusions: To move this field forward, we must continue to build on international experiences with a focus on developing novel methodological approaches to generating, incorporating, and implementing evidence into policy and practice.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Background

NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.

Objectives

We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.

Results

There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.

Conclusions

Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY MAKING: QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXPERIENCE

Background: Evidence-based policy making is increasingly used for better resource allocation. Queensland Department of Health has developed a new model to introduce innovative health technologies through a health technology assessment (HTA) program.

Structure: A state-wide committee and several sub-committees at health service district level were established to oversee the HTA program and to monitor the uptake of technologies. The committees are supported by a multidisciplinary secretariat comprising staff with key HTA skills.

Process: The process starts with HTA applications, which are then shortlisted according to prespecified criteria. A due diligence process adopting a rapid evidence assessment approach is used to evaluate the applications. Based on the assessment, recommendations are made using a deliberative decision-making process guided by well-recognized tools. With positive recommendation, a technology is piloted in constrained local setting before its system-wide diffusion.

Outcome: The HTA program has assisted health administrators in prioritizing their health technology agendas. It has gained trust and wide support from policy makers and is increasingly used to support funding allocations, indicating the increasing awareness of and confidence in the program.

Conclusions: The HTA program is a valuable process to assist evidence-based policy development and to guide better resource allocation.

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies.

DISCUSSION

Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

[Health services supply and the economic crisis: either we fund goods and services according to their value or we become bankrupt. SESPAS report 2014]

Health policy has reacted to the financial crisis by overemphasising measures targeted at reducing unit costs, increasing barriers to access (waiting lists) or closing premises. It is too soon for scientific assessment of the impact of this reshaping of supply on equity, quality and safety, and on individual and population health. Nevertheless, the emergency measures taken to achieve fiscal stabilization have shifted the focus to resolving budget problems at the expenses of sounder and deeper initiatives aimed at deciding what must be funded and how. This article advocates a policy based on selective funding of services and benefits on the basis of their value. Other countries' experiences can serve as a useful guide, including robust methods to identify technologies (or their uses) of questionable value, prioritization criteria, and careful consideration of limitations associated with the elimination of a certain benefit, especially if it affects the founding values of the system. The necessary tools are available to the Spanish health system: the regulatory framework and technical bodies able to identify lower value care, support for decision-making, and timely evaluation of such decisions. Despite the numerous hurdles, maintaining the status quo is too expensive a choice, given the opportunity costs of effectiveness and safety losses, measured in terms of equity and the economic efficiency of the Spanish health system, which may ultimately translate into worsening of the population's health status.

A novel research design can aid disinvestment from existing health technologies with uncertain effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety

OBJECTIVES

Disinvestment is critical for ensuring the long-term sustainability of health-care services. Key barriers to disinvestment are heterogeneity between research and clinical settings, absence of evidence of effectiveness of some health technologies, and exposure of patients and organizations to risks and poor outcomes. We aimed to develop a feasible research design that can evaluate disinvestment in health technologies of uncertain effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article (1) establishes the need for disinvestment methodologies, (2) identifies the ethical concerns and feasibility constraints of conventional research designs for this issue, (3) describes the planning, implementation, and analytical framework for a novel disinvestment-specific study design, and (4) describes potential limitations in application of this design.

RESULTS

The stepped-wedge, roll-in cluster randomized controlled trial can facilitate the disinvestment process, whereas generating evidence to determine whether the decision to disinvest was sound in the clinical environment. A noninferiority research paradigm may be applied to this methodology to demonstrate that the removal of a health technology does not adversely affect outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This research design can be applied across multiple fields and will assist determination of whether specific health technologies are clinically effective, cost-effective, and safe.

Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices

OBJECTIVES

Obsolescence is a natural phase of the lifecycle of health technologies. Given increasing cost of health expenditures worldwide, health organizations have little choice but to engage in health technology reassessment (HTR); a structured, evidence-based assessment of the medical, social, ethical, and economic effects of a technology, currently used within the healthcare system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives. This research was completed to identify and summarize international HTR initiatives for non-drug technologies.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the terms disinvestment, obsolescence, obsolete technology, ineffective, reassessment, reinvestment, reallocation, program budgeting, and marginal analysis to search PubMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL until November 2011. Websites of organizations listed as members of INAHTA and HTAi were hand-searched for gray literature. Documents were excluded if they were unavailable in English, if the title/abstract was irrelevant to HTR, and/or if the document made no mention of current practices. All citations were screened in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Sixty full-text documents were reviewed and forty were included. One model for reassessment was identified; however, it has never been put into practice. Eight countries have some evidence of past or current work related to reassessment; seven have shown evidence of continued work in HTR. There is negligible focus on monitoring and implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

HTR is in its infancy. Although health technology reassessments are being conducted, there is no standardized approach. Future work should focus on developing and piloting a comprehensive methodology for completing HTR.

Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: survey and key informant interviews

BACKGROUND

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical and economic effects of a technology currently used in the health care system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives. Little is known about current international HTR practices. The objective of this research was to summarize experience-based information gathered from international experts on the development, initiation and implementation of a HTR program.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach, using a survey and in-depth interviews, was adopted. The survey covered 8 concepts: prioritization/identification of potentially obsolete technologies; program development; implementation; mitigation; program championing; stakeholder engagement; monitoring; and reinvestment. Members of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) formed the sampling frame. Participation was solicited via email and the survey was administered online using SurveyMonkey. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. To gather more in-depth knowledge, semi-structured interviews were conducted among organizations with active HTR programs. Interview questions were developed using the same 8 concepts. The hour-long interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-five individuals responded to the survey: 49 were not discussing HTR, 21 were beginning to discuss HTR, nine were imminently developing a program, and 16 participants had programs and were completing reassessments. The survey results revealed that methods vary widely and that although HTR is a powerful tool, it is currently not being used to its full potential. Of the 16 with active programs, nine agreed to participate in follow-up interviews. Interview participants identified early and extensive stakeholder engagement as the most important factors for success. A lack of top-down support and financial and human resources are inhibiting program development.

DISCUSSION

HTR is in its infancy. Although HTRs are being conducted, there are no standardized approaches. However, much can be learned from current international work. Future work should focus on developing a comprehensive methodology, reporting the processes of reassessments and sharing successes and challenges in a common platform.

Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: evidence from the English experience

In a context of ever increasing demand, the recent economic downturn has placed further pressure on decision-makers to effectively target healthcare resources. Over recent years there has been a push to develop more explicit evidence-based priority-setting processes, which aim to be transparent and inclusive in their approach and a number of analytical tools and sources of evidence have been developed and utilised at national and local levels. This paper reports findings from a qualitative research study which investigated local priority-setting activity across five English Primary Care Trusts, between March and November 2012. Findings demonstrate the dual aims of local decision-making processes: to improve the overall effectiveness of priority-setting (i.e. reaching 'correct' resource allocation decisions); and to increase the acceptability of priority-setting processes for those involved in both decision-making and implementation. Respondents considered priority-setting processes to be compartmentalised and peripheral to resource planning and allocation. Further progress was required with regard to disinvestment and service redesign with respondents noting difficulty in implementing decisions. While local priority-setters had begun to develop more explicit processes, public awareness and input remained limited. The leadership behaviours required to navigate the political complexities of working within and across organisations with differing incentives systems and cultures remained similarly underdeveloped.

ENGAGING CLINICIANS IN EVIDENCE-BASED DISINVESTMENT: ROLE AND PERCEPTIONS OF EVIDENCE

Objectives:The aim of this study was to determine how evidence from systematic review (SR) is perceived and negotiated by expert stakeholders in considering a technology for potential disinvestment.

Methods:An evidence-informed stakeholder engagement examined results from a diagnostic accuracy SR of vitamin B12and folate tests. Pathologists deliberated around the SR findings to generate an informed contribution to future policy for the funding of B12and folate tests. Deliberations were transcribed and subject to qualitative analysis.

Results:Pathologists did not engage with findings from the SR in depth; rather they sought to contest the terms of the problem driving the review and attempted to reframe it. Pathologists questioned the usefulness of SR outcomes given the variable definitions of B12deficiency and deferred addressing disinvestment options specifically pertaining to B12testing. However,folatetesting was proffered as a potential disinvestment candidate, based upon pathologists' definition of “appropriate” evidence beyond the bounds of the SR.

Conclusions:The value of SR to informing disinvestment deliberations by expert stakeholders may be a function of timing as well as content. Engagement of stakeholders in co-produced evidence may be required at two levels: (i) Early in the synthesis phase to help shape the SR and harmonize expert views with the available evidence (including gaps); (ii) Collaboration in primary research to fill evidence-gaps thus supporting evidence-based disinvestment. Without this, information asymmetry between clinically engaged experts and decision makers may preclude the collaborative, informed, and technical discussions required to generate productive policy change.

Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment"

BACKGROUND

Health systems face rising patient expectations and economic pressures; decision makers seek to enhance efficiency to improve access to appropriate care. There is international interest in the role of HTA to support decisions to optimize use of established technologies, particularly in "disinvesting" from low-benefit uses.

METHODS

This study summarizes main points from an HTAi Policy Forum meeting on this topic, drawing on presentations, discussions among attendees, and an advance background paper.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Optimization involves assessment or re-assessment of a technology, a decision on optimal use, and decision implementation. This may occur within a routine process to improve safety and quality and create "headroom" for new technologies, or ad hoc in response to financial constraints. The term "disinvestment" is not always helpful in describing these processes. HTA contributes to optimization, but there is scope to increase its role in many systems. Stakeholders may have strong views on access to technology, and stakeholder involvement is essential. Optimization faces challenges including loss aversion and entitlement, stakeholder inertia and entrenchment, heterogeneity in patient outcomes, and the need to demonstrate convincingly absence of benefit. While basic HTA principles remain applicable, methodological developments are needed better to support optimization. These include mechanisms for candidate technology identification and prioritization, enhanced collection and analysis of routine data, and clinician engagement. To maximize value to decision makers, HTA should consider implementation strategies and barriers. Improving optimization processes calls for a coordinated approach, and actions are identified for system leaders, HTA and other health organizations, and industry.

Delisting policy reform in South Korea: failed or policy change?

OBJECTIVES

The sustainability of national health insurance in South Korea has been under threat because of the relative and absolute high expenditure on drugs and its fast rate of increase. According to this need, a Drug Expenditure Rationalization Plan (DERP) was enacted in late 2006, and a reevaluation project to delist drugs started in 2007 as one part of the DERP.

METHOD

This article follows the process of the delisting policy in Korea. It addresses the history of the policy implementation and its changes, content, and impact and suggests a more reasonable policy direction, thereby setting a helpful example for other countries.

RESULTS

After a pilot reevaluation and the subsequent evaluation of a hypertension drug, the DERP fell into arrears as regards its original time line mainly because of the difficulties in developing methodologies and the government's inexperience in managing a megascale reevaluation project. The confusion and conflicts during the evaluation became a major burden on the government and society. Finally, the government changed the framework of the delisting policy from reevaluation based on cost-effectiveness to across-the-board price reductions aiming at the quick attainment of financial savings and minimizing conflict between the government and stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The government should lead the project with a more consistent and sustainable assessment framework of cost-effectiveness as the tool for the rational allocation of health resources, providing strong leadership and political will and a far-sighted view rather than focusing on compromise with special interest groups. In addition, development of more practical and multidimensional evaluation methodology is needed.

The effect of an educational intervention on meperidine use in Nova Scotia, Canada: a time series analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of a prescriber focused individual educational and audit-feedback intervention undertaken by the Nova Scotia Prescription Monitoring Program (NSPMP) in March/April 2007 to reduce meperidine use.

METHOD

The NSPMP records all prescriptions for controlled substances dispensed in community pharmacies in Nova Scotia, Canada. Oral meperidine use from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2009 was examined using NSPMP data. Monthly totals for the following were obtained: number of individual patients who filled at least one meperidine prescription, number of prescriptions, and number of tablets dispensed. Data were analyzed graphically to observe overall trends. The intervention effect was estimated on the logarithmic scale with autocorrelations over time modeled by an integrated autoregressive moving average model for each outcome measure.

RESULTS

An overall trend toward decreasing use from July 2005 to December 2009 was apparent for all three outcome measures. The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in meperidine use, after adjusting for the overall long-term trend. Compared with the pre-intervention period, the monthly number of patients declined by 12% (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5%-18%), prescriptions by 10% (p < 0.001; 95%CI = 3%-17%), and tablets by 13.5% (p < 0.001, 95%CI = 6%-29%) in the post-intervention period.

CONCLUSION

Given the risks associated with meperidine, determining that this intervention successfully reduced meperidine use is encouraging. This study highlights the potential for using population data such as the NSPMP to evaluate the effectiveness of population-level interventions to improve medication use, including professional, organizational, financial, and regulatory initiatives.