Skip to main content
Log in

Health Technology Assessment (HTA)

Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen und Potenzial in der Radiologie

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Developments in healthcare and potential for radiology

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Kostenintensive Maßnahmen und Verfahren, wie auch in der Radiologie, haben deutliche wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen hinsichtlich steigender Ausgaben bei begrenzten Mitteln.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

„Health Technology Assessment“ (HTA) bezeichnet die systematische Bewertung medizinischer Verfahren und Technologien, das in den letzten Jahren in vielen Ländern in die Gesundheitspolitik eingeführt worden ist.

Bewertung

In manchen Fällen ist eine HTA-Analyse direkt für die Praxis umsetzbar, wie die im Artikel beschriebenen Beispiele aufzeigen. Oft ergibt sich in der praktischen Umsetzung für die Radiologie allerdings zum heutigen Stand des HTA das Problem, dass die Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung noch nicht den umfassenden Ausblick im HTA-Bericht hat, sondern sich auf einen Teilbereich, z. B. aktuelle Kosten vs. Sensitivität einer Methode beschränkt. Die Radiologie hat seit ihrer Konstitution eine hohe Innovationskraft, und neue Entwicklungen werden auch die zukünftigen Jahre maßgeblich bestimmen. Diese Verfahren müssen nicht nur hinsichtlich ihrer Machbarkeit evaluiert werden, sondern im Sinne des HTA in einem Gesamtkontext.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Auch in der Radiologie besteht eine Vielzahl von Möglichkeiten für Radiologen, nicht nur passive Konsumenten von HTA-Berichten zu sein, sondern auch aktive Mitgestalter dieser Prozesse zu werden; eine Chance, die genutzt werden sollte.

Abstract

Clinical/methodical issue

Cost-intensive measures and procedures, such as also employed in radiology, have far-reaching economic implications in respect to increasing expenditure with limited resources.

Standard radiological methods

Health technology assessment (HTA) describes the systematic evaluation of medical procedures and technologies which in recent years has been introduced by many countries into healthcare politics.

Assessment

In many cases HTA analyses can be directly implemented into practice as shown by the examples given in this article; however, in the current form of HTA the practical implementation for radiology often presents the problem that the cost-benefit ratio does not yet have a comprehensive view in the HTA report but is limited to a subsection, e.g. current costs versus sensitivity of a method. Since its inception radiology has had a high power of innovation and new developments will also substantially determine the future years. These procedures must not only be evaluated with respect to feasibility but also in the sense of the HTA in the total concept.

Practical recommendations

In radiology there are also a large number of possibilities for radiologists not only as passive consumers of HTA reports but also to become active participants in this process, an opportunity which should be taken advantage of.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Velasco-Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP et al (2008) Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Observa-tory studies series no 14. World Health Organization RfE, Kopenhagen

  2. Schmitt-Rüth S, Esslinger AS, Schöffski O (2007) Der Markt für Medizintechnik. Health Economics Research Zentrum, Burgdorf

  3. Fattore G, Maniadakis N, Mantovani LG et al (2011) Health technology assessment: what is it? Current status and perspectives in the field of electrophysiology. Europace 13(Suppl 2):ii49–ii53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R (2000) „Best practice“ in health care – or why we need evidence-based medicine, guidelines and health technology assessment. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 94:741–744

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glasziou P (2012) Health technology assessment: an evidence-based medicine perspective. Med Decis Making 32:E20–E24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kristensen FB, Lampe K, Chase DL et al (2009) Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(Suppl 2):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Busse R, Orvain J, Valesco M et al (2002) Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18:361–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Worz M, Busse R (2005) Analysing the impact of health-care system change in the EU member states – Germany. Health Econ 14:S133–S149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartelmes M, Neumann U, Luhmann D et al (2009) Methods for assessment of innovative medical technologies during early stages of development. GMS Health Technol Assess 5:Doc15

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sorenson C, Chalkidou K (2012) Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law 7:25–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perleth M, Busse R (2000) Health technology assessment in Germany. Status, challenges, and development. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16:412–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perry S, Thamer M (1997) Health technology assessment: decentralized and fragmented in the US compared to other countries. Health Policy 40:177–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Bungay H et al (2001) The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for investigation of the knee joint. Health Technol Assess 5:1–95

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stadlbauer A, Bernt R, Salomonowitz E et al (2011) Health-economic evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy for diagnosis of prostate cancer. Rofo 183:925–932

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lühmann D (2001) Stellenwert der Magnet-Resonanz-Tomographie im Rahmen der Versorgung von Patienten mir Rückenschmerzen. Kurz-HTA Bericht, Update einer Best-Evidence-Synthese

  16. Auguste P, Barton P, Hyde C et al (2011) An economic evaluation of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. Health Technol Assess 15:iii–iv, 1–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Callahan D (2012) Health technology assessment implementation: the politics of ethics. Med Decis Making 32:E13–E19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA (2011) Health technology assessment and private payers‘ coverage of personalized medicine. J Oncol Pract 7:18s–24s

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eisenberg JM (1999) Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 282:1865–1869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hailey DM (1993) The influence of technology assessments by advisory bodies on health policy and practice. Health Policy 25:243–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wardlaw JM, Keir SL, Seymour J et al (2004) What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke? Health Technol Assess 8:iii, ix–x, 1–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Busch HP (2013) [Imaging center – optimization of the imaging process]. Rofo 185:313–319. doi:10.1055/s0032-1330346. [Epub 2013 Jan 11]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Maurer MH, Teichgräber U, Kröncke TJ et al (2012) The balanced scorecard – applications in a radiology department]. Rofo 184:1118–1125. doi:10.1055/s0032-1325381. [Epub 2012 Oct 11]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. E.R. Gizewski, M. Forsting, G.A. Krombach, O. Schöffski geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E.R. Gizewski MHBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gizewski, E., Forsting, M., Krombach, G. et al. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Radiologe 54, 589–598 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-014-2695-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-014-2695-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation