Skip to main content Accessibility help

Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level

  • Gisselle Gallego (a1), Kees van Gool (a1) and Dianne Kelleher (a2)


Objectives: Several studies have shown that a key determinant of successful health technology assessment (HTA) uptake is a clear, fair, and consistent decision-making process for the approval and introduction of health technologies. The aim of this study was to gauge healthcare providers' and managers' perceptions of local level decision making and determine whether these processes offer a conducive environment for HTA. An Area Health Service (AHS) aimed to use the results of this study to help design a new process of technology assessment and decision making.

Methods: An online survey was sent to all health service managers and healthcare providers working in one AHS in Sydney, Australia. Questions related to perceptions of current health technology decisions in participants' own institution/facility and opinions on key criteria for successful decision-making processes.

Results: Less than a third of participants agreed with the statements that local decision-making processes were appropriate, easy to understand, evidence-based, fair, or consistently applied. Decisions were reportedly largely influenced by total cost considerations as well as by the central state health departments and the Area executive.

Conclusions: Although there are renewed initiatives in HTA in Australia, there is a risk that such investments will not be productive unless policy makers also examine the decision-making contexts within which HTA can successfully be implemented. The results of this survey show that this is especially true at the local level and that any HTA initiative should be accompanied by efforts to improve decision-making processes.



Hide All
1. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia: Productivity Commission research report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission; 2005.
2. Borowski, HZ, Brehaut, J, Hailey, D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: The Alberta model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:155161.
3. Buxton, MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11331142.
4. Department of Surgery of the Calgary Health Region. Local health technology assessment program. Accessed May 7, 2007.
5. Gallego, G, Fowler, S, van Gool, K. Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32:520527.
6. Gallego, G, Melocco, T, Taylor, SJ, Brien, JE. Access to high-cost drugs: Decision makers' perspectives. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35:1820.
7. Griffith, G. Commonwealth-state responsibilities for health: “Big bang” or incremental reform? Briefing paper no. 17/06. Sydney: Parliament of NSW; 2006.
8. Hailey, DM, Roseman, C. Health care technology in Australia and New Zealand: Contrasts and cooperation. Health Policy. 1990;14:177189.
9. Hoffmann, C, Graf von der Schulenburg, JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52:179192.
10. IJzerman, MJ, Reuzel, RP, Severens, HL. Pre-assessment to assess the match between cost-effectiveness results and decision makers' information needs: An illustration using two cases in rehabilitation medicine in the Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1727.
11. Jansson, S, Anell, A. The impact of decentralised drug-budgets in Sweden – a survey of physicians' attitudes towards costs and cost-effectiveness. Health Policy. 2006;76:299311.
12. Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S, Hivon, M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: Identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30:603641.
13. Martin, D, Singer, P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:5968.
14. McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263267.
15. Mitchell, AS. Antipodean assessment. Activities, actions, and achievements. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:203212.
16. New South Wales Health Department. Model policy for the safe introduction of new interventional procedures into clinical practice: A model policy for area health services and other public health organisations. Accessed November 2, 2006.
17. Northern Sydney Central Coast (NSCCH) Health. Annual report 2005–2006. Accessed May 3, 2007.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
19. Southern Health. The new clinical procedures committee, new procedures, new technologies & beyond. Accessed June 11, 2007.
20. Spigelman, AD. Governance and innovation: Experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76:913.
21. Strauss, AL, Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
22. The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). Moving forward – the funding of medicines in Australia's hospitals. Melbourne: The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA); 2004.
23. van Velden, ME, Severens, JL, Novak, A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: The influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision making levels. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:10751082.
24. Victorian Department of Human Services. Victorian policy advisory committee on clinical practice and technology (VPACT). Accessed June 11, 2007.
25. Zwart-van Rijkom, JE, Leufkens, HG, Busschbach, JJ et al. , Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision making in the Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET project. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:149160.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Gallego supplementary material

 Word (47 KB)
47 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed