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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BryanSMittonCDonaldsonC. Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ. 2014;23(4):379–383.
2.
ElshaugAGHillerJEMossJR. Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):1–9.
3.
GarnerSLittlejohnsP. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done?BMJ. 2011;343(7):d4519.
4.
DanielsTWilliamsIRobinsonSSpenceK. Tackling disinvestment in healthcare services: the views of resource allocators in the English NHS. J Health Organ Manage. 2013;27(6):762–780.
5.
ElshaugAGHillerJETunisSRMossJR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective healthcare practices. Aust N Z Health Policy. 2007;4(1):23.
6.
BeauchampTLChildressJF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009.
7.
Choosing Wisely Canada: The Canadian Medical Association’s (CMA) Forum on General and Family Practice Issues (GP Forum). Family medicine: eleven things physicians and patients should question. 2004; web site. http://www.choosingwiselycanada.org/recommendations/family-medicine/. Updated October 29, 2014. Accessed May 10, 2016.
8.
Choosing Wisely Canada: Tri-Society Task Force of theCanadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO); Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (CAMO); Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology (CSSO). Oncology: ten things physicians and patients should question. 2014; web site. http://www.choosingwiselycanada.org/recommendations/oncology/. Updated October 29, 2014. Accessed May 10, 2016.
9.
LawrenceDJ. The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. J Chiropractic Humanities. 2007;14:34–40.
10.
GillonR. Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. J Med Ethics. 2003;29(5):307–312.
11.
BerglundCA. Ethics for healthcare. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004.
12.
BeauchampT. The ‘four principles’ approach to healthcare ethics. In: AshcroftREDawsonADraperHMcMillanJR, eds. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007:3–10.
13.
GillonR. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ. 1994;309(6948):184.
14.
NoseworthyTClementF. Health technology reassessment: scope, methodology, & language. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(3):201.
15.
JoshiNPStahnischFWNoseworthyTW. Reassessment of Health Technologies: Obsolescence and Waste. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.
16.
MackeanGNoseworthyTLeggettLClementF. On behalf of the Health Technology Assessment Unit. A Health Technology Reassessment Model for Alberta: An Information and Discussion Paper. Calgary, Alberta. 2012.
17.
MacKeanGNoseworthyTElshaugAG. Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):418–423.
18.
BuchananA. Justice and Health Care: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009.
