ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2012
Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money.
Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software in Healthcare Priority Setting: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).BMC health services research · 2015Pooled it
- Assessing patient preferences for medical decision making - a comparison of different methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Vaccine decision making in New Zealand: a discrete choice experiment.BMC public health · 2024Article
- The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Priority setting for health technology adoption at the national level: Lessons learned over 25 years' experience.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Review
- Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders' Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL).PharmacoEconomics - open · 2018Article
- Expensive lifesaving treatments: allocating resources and maximizing access.Israel journal of health policy research · 2018Article
- Updates and reflections about the IJHPR, on the eve of its seventh year.Israel journal of health policy research · 2017Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Do the equity-efficiency preferences of the Israeli Basket Committee match those of Israeli health policy makers?Israel journal of health policy research · 2017Article
- Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Towards improving the ethics of ecological research.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Does cancer deserve special treatment when health technologies are prioritized?Israel journal of health policy research · 2013Article
- Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care.Israel journal of health policy research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelled
backgroundDeciding which health technologies to fund involves confronting some of the most difficult choices in medicine. As for other countries, the Israeli health system is faced each year with having to make these difficult decisions. The Public National Advisory Committee, known as 'the Basket Committee', selects new technologies for the basic list of health care that all Israelis are entitled to access, known as the 'health basket'. We introduce a framework for health technology prioritization based explicitly on value for money that enables the main variables considered by decision-makers to be explicitly included. Although the framework's exposition is in terms of the Basket Committee selecting new technologies for Israel's health basket, we believe that the framework would also work well for other countries.
methodsOur proposed prioritization framework involves comparing four main variables for each technology: 1. Incremental benefits, including 'equity benefits', to Israel's population; 2. Incremental total cost to Israel's health system; 3. Quality of evidence; and 4. Any additional 'X-factors' not elsewhere included, such as strategic or legal factors, etc. Applying methodology from multi-criteria decision analysis, the multiple dimensions comprising the first variable are aggregated via a points system.
resultsThe four variables are combined for each technology and compared across the technologies in the 'Value for Money (VfM) Chart'. The VfM Chart can be used to identify technologies that are good value for money, and, given a budget constraint, to select technologies that should be funded. This is demonstrated using 18 illustrative technologies.
conclusionsThe VfM Chart is an intuitively appealing decision-support tool for helping decision-makers to focus on the inherent tradeoffs involved in health technology prioritization. Such deliberations can be performed in a systematic and transparent fashion that can also be easily communicated to stakeholders, including the general public. Possible future research includes pilot-testing the VfM Chart using real-world data. Ideally, this would involve working with the Basket Committee. Likewise, the framework could be tested and applied by health technology prioritization agencies in other countries.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.