Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 11;14(1):82.

A systematic review on current status of health technology reassessment: insights for South Korea.

Author information

1
Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea.
2
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.
3
Department of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Gachon University, 191 Hambakmoero, Yeonsu-gu, 406-799, Incheon, Korea. sunarea87@gachon.ac.kr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To systematically investigate the current status and methodology of health technology reassessment (HTR) in various countries to draw insights for the healthcare system in South Korea.

METHODS:

A systematic literature search was conducted on the articles published between January 2000 and February 2015 on Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PubMed. The titles and abstracts of retrieved records were screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data related to HTR were extracted using a pre-standardised form. The review was conducted using narrative synthesis to understand and summarise the HTR process and policies.

RESULTS:

Forty five studies, conducted in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and the United States of America, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Informed by the literature review, and complemented by informant interviews, we focused on HTR activities in four jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Spain. There were similarities in the HTR processes, namely the use of existing health technology assessment agencies, reassessment candidate technology identification and priority setting, stakeholder involvement, support for reimbursement coverage, and implementation strategies. Considering the findings of the systematic review in the context of the domestic healthcare environment in Korea, an appropriate HTR model was developed. This model included four stages, those of identification, prioritisation, reassessment and decision.

CONCLUSIONS:

Disinvestment and reinvestment through the HTR was used to increase the efficiency and quality of care to help patients receive optimal treatment. Based on the lessons learnt from other countries' experiences, Korea should make efforts to establish an HTR process that optimises the National Healthcare Insurance system through revision of the existing Medical Service Act.

KEYWORDS:

Disinvestment; Health technology reassessment; Systematic review

PMID:
27835964
PMCID:
PMC5106773
DOI:
10.1186/s12961-016-0152-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center