Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T11:41:28.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies in Technology Assessment and Implementation in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Donald A. Young
Donald A. Young
Affiliation:
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are many ongoing activities in the United States that can be characterized as strategies in technology assessment and implementation. A comprehensive strategy, however, is lacking. The richness and diversity of the groups with a stake in technology assessment is in part responsible for the inability to move to a comprehensive strategy. Important conflicts within and across groups must be resolved before a comprehensive program of technology assessment can be put in place.

Type
Technology Assessment: Policy, Clinical, and Methodological Issues
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 13 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1.Eddy, D. M.Flying without instruments: Analyzing medical policies by consensus and expert opinion. The John Hartford Foundation Bulletin, 1983, Winter, 1–4.Google Scholar
2.Finkelstein, S. N., Isaacson, K. A., & Frishkopf, J. J.The process of evaluating medical technologies for third-party coverage. Journal of Health Care Technology, 1984, 1, 89–102.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. General considerations for the clinical evaluation of drugs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 09 1977.Google Scholar
4.Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Investigational device exemptions: Regulatory requirements for medical devices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.Google Scholar
5.Institute of Medicine. Evaluating medical technologies in clinical use. Report of a conference on linking the clinical use of biomedical technologies and the collection of evaluative data. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981.Google Scholar
6.Institute of Medicine. Planning study report: A consortium for assessing medical technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983.Google Scholar
7.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
8.Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Technology Assessment and Coverage Decisionmaking in the Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C.: Macro Systems, 08 1984.Google Scholar
9.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Technology Transfer at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 03 1982.Google Scholar
10.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 09 1982.Google Scholar
11.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. The impact of randomized clinicaltrials on health policy and medical practice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 08 1983.Google Scholar
12.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Medical Technology and Costs of the Medicare Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 07 1984.Google Scholar
13.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Federal Policies and the Medical Devices Industry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 10 1984.Google Scholar
14.Relman, A. S.Assessment of Medical Practices: A Simple Proposal. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 153–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Young, D. A. Communications Linking Clinical Research and Clinical Practice. In Roberts, E., Levy, R. et al. (Eds.) Biomedical Innovation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981, 177–99.Google Scholar