Another Special Relationship? Interactions between Health Technology Policies and Health Care Systems in the United States and the United Kingdom
ABSTRACT Confronted with similar challenges, the United States and the United Kingdom have adopted very different health technology policies. In the United States, the focus has been on technology creation, in particular the funding of basic biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. This both reflects and reinforces an innovation-first culture in the United States, including in health. By contrast, the United Kingdom has been much more heavily committed to applied research and evaluative research, including health-technology assessment. That is, while U.S. policy has focused on technology creation, U.K. policy has been more oriented toward technology diffusion. This article surveys the sources of these differences. We consider the impacts of institutional, cultural, and other factors that may explain them, and emphasize that it is hard to disentangle the separate effects of those factors. We conclude with a discussion of the difficulties in drawing cross-national lessons in health technology policy.
Article: Editorial commentUrology 10/2014; 84(5):1072. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.068 · 2.13 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the association of technological capacity with prostate cancer quality of care. Technological capacity was conceptualized as a market's ability to provide prostate cancer treatment with new technology, including robotic prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009 to identify men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (n = 46,274). We measured technological capacity as the number of providers performing robotic prostatectomy or IMRT per population in a health care market. We used multilevel logistic regression analysis to assess the association of technological capacity with receiving quality care according to a set of nationally endorsed quality measures, while adjusting for patient and market characteristics. Overall, our findings were mixed with only subtle differences in quality of care comparing high-tech with low-tech markets. High robotic prostatectomy capacity was associated with better adherence to some quality measures, such as avoiding unnecessary bone scans (79.8% vs 73.0%; P = .003) and having follow-up with urologists (67.7% vs 62.6%; P = .023). However, for most measures, neither high robotic prostatectomy nor high-IMRT capacity was associated with significant increases in adherence rates. In fact, for 1 measure (treatment by a high-volume provider), high-IMRT capacity was associated with lower performance (23.4% vs 28.5%; P <.001). Our findings suggest that new technology is not clearly associated with higher quality of care. To improve quality, more specific efforts will be needed. Published by Elsevier Inc.Urology 10/2014; 84(5). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.067 · 2.13 Impact Factor