Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Healthcare technology and technology assessment

European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 July 2007

Abstract

New technology is one of the primary drivers for increased healthcare costs in the United States. Both physician and industry play important roles in the development, adoption, utilization and choice of new technologies. The Federal Drug Administration regulates new drugs and new medical devices, but healthcare technology assessment remains limited. Healthcare technology assessment originated in federal agencies; today it is decentralized with increasing private sector efforts. Innovation is left to free market forces, including direct to consumer marketing and consumer choice. But to be fair to the consumer, he/she must have free knowledge of all the risks and benefits of a new technology in order to make an informed choice. Physicians, institutions and industry need to work together by providing proven, safe, clinically effective and cost effective new technologies, which require valid pre-market clinical trials and post-market continued surveillance with national and international registries allowing full transparency of new products to the consumer—the patient.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Arbuckle, B (2006) Device maker pricing has big impact on America’s healthcare bill. http://www.healthleadersmedia.com. 24 May

  2. Bacin A, Stratton K, Burke SP (eds) (2006) Committee on the assessment of the U.S. drug safety system report: the future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. National Academies, Washington http://www.IOM@edu/cms/3793/26341?37329.aspx. 5 October

  3. Bal BS, Haltom D, Aleto E, Barrett M (2005) Early complications of primary total hip replacement performed with a two-incision minimally invasive technique. J Bone Jt Surg A 88A(Suppl):221–233

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bhattacharyya T, Yeon H, Harris MB (2005) The medical-legal aspects of informed consent in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Jt Surg A 87A:2395–2400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhattacharyya T, Yeon H, Harris MB (2005) The medical-legal aspects of informed consent in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Jt Surg A 87A:2399

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bozic KJ, Hansen E (2006) The impact of disruptive innovations in orthopaedic surgery. Orthop J Harvard Med School 8:37–39

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bozic KJ, Morshed S, Silverstein MD, Rubash HE, Kahn JG (2006) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies in orthopaedics. The case of alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg A 88A:706–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bozic KJ, Pierce RG, Herndon JH (2004) Health care technology assessment. J Bone Jt Surg A 86A:1305–1314

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Nan M et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard medical practice study I. N Engl J Med 324:370–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Callaghan JJ, Crowninshield RD, Greenwald AS, Lieberman JR, Rosenberg AL, Lewellan DG (2005) Introducing technology into orthopaedic practice. How should it be done? J Bone Jt Surg A 87A:1146–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, Bush T, Waddell G (1994) An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine 19:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Christensen CM (2000) Will disruptive innovations cure healthcare? Harvard Bus Rev, September–October, pp 102–111

  13. Deyo R (1991) Fads in the treatment of low back pain. N Engl J Med 325:1039–1045

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D (2002) Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18(2):192–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Feeny D (1989) Technology assessment and the cost of healthcare. J Tech Assess Health Care 5:559–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Frankle M, Levy JC, Pupello D, Siegal S, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M (2005) The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Jt Surg A 87A:1697–1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garber AM (2006) The price of growth in the medical-device industry. N Engl J Med 355:337–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gewande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126:66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gillespie WJ, Pekarsky B, O’Connell DL (1995) Evaluation of new technologies for total hip replacement. Economic modeling and clinical trials. J Bone Jt Surg B 77B:528–533

    Google Scholar 

  20. Herzlinger, RE (2006) Why innovation in healthcare is so hard. Harvard Bus Rev, May, pp 58–66

  21. Institute of Medicine (2006) http://www.iom@nas.edu

  22. Lewellan DG (2005) Why new technologies should be submitted to the scientific review process before general implementation. In the American Orthopaedic Association symposium: introducing new technology into orthopaedic practice. How should it be done? J Bone Jt Surg A 87A:1157

    Google Scholar 

  23. Malchau H (2000) Introducing new technology: a stepwise algorithm. Spine 25:285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Maloney WJ (2001) National joint replacement registries: has the truth come? J Bone Jt Surg A 83A:1582–1585

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maynard A (1991) The relevance of health economics to health promotion. WHO Reg Publ Eur Ser 37:29–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Millenson ML (1999) Demanding medical excellence: doctors and accountability in the information age. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  27. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology HTA 101: selected issues in HTA. National Institutes of Health. Available at http://www.nlm,gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101012.html. Accessed, 26 November 2006

  28. Newmann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC (2006) Medicare and cost-effectivenss analysis. N Engl J Med 353:1516–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roder C, El-Kerdi A, Eggli S, Aebi M (2004) A centralized total joint registry using web-based technologies. J Bone Jt Surg A 86A:2077–2080

    Google Scholar 

  30. Royal HD (1994) Technology assessment: scientific challenges. Am J Roentgenol 163(3):503–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tang N, Eisenberg JM, Meyer GS (2004) The roles of government in improving health care quality and safety. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 30(1):47–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (2006) Drug safety. Improvement needed in FDA’s postmarket decision-making and oversight process. GAO-06-402 March, pp 1–38

  33. Weinstein JN (2003) Emerging technology in the spine. Should we rethink the past or move forward in spite of the past? Spine 28:51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weinstein JN (2006) An altruistic approach to clinical trials. The National Clinical Trials Consortium (NCTC). Spine 31:1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Weinstein JN (2006) An altruistic approach to clinical trials. The National Clinical Trials Consortium (NCTC). Spine 31:1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weinstein JN (2006) An altruistic approach to clinical trials. The National Clinical Trials Consortium (NCTC). Spine 31:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weinstein JN (2006) An altruistic approach to clinical trials. The National Clinical Trials Consortium (NCTC). J Bone Jt Surg A 88A:1396

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson RM, Harrison BT, Gibberd RW, Hamilton JD (1999) An analysis of the causes of adverse events from the quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust 170:411–415

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wong DA (2006) AAOS member patient safety survey: a first look. Bull Am Acad Orthop Surg 54:19–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James H. Herndon.

Additional information

No grant support.

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0441-8

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herndon, J.H., Hwang, R. & Bozic, K.H. Healthcare technology and technology assessment. Eur Spine J 16, 1293–1302 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0369-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0369-z

Keywords

Navigation