Another Special Relationship? Interactions between Health Technology Policies and Health Care Systems in the United States and the United Kingdom
Columbia University.Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law (Impact Factor: 1.37). 02/2011; 36(1):119-39. DOI: 10.1215/03616878-1191126
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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "By bringing forward the worldview and mandate of those who finance the development of new medical technology, this paper highlights the perplexing absence of health policy considerations in the decisions that give shape to health technology (Sampat and Drummond 2011). We focus our attention on the financing of academic spin-offs, which are small firms created by entrepreneurial academics and clinicians in order to develop and bring a new health technology to market. "
ABSTRACT: To encourage the commercial translation of biomedical discoveries, public policies increasingly seek to stimulate the venture capital industry. Very little is known, however, about the way venture capitalists assess the likely benefits new technologies may bring to clinical practice and healthcare systems. Drawing on a five-year fieldwork conducted in Quebec (Canada), which included in-depth interviews and document analysis, we explore why capital investors choose to invest in certain health technology-based ventures and how they influence the innovation process. Our findings clarify how capital investors: first, use market-oriented valuations when they pick and ‘coach’ technology entrepreneurs; second, act to transform and protect their investments; and finally, exert their authority along the technology development process. Current innovation policies should be carefully examined because capital investors’ understanding of the world in which they operate largely determines which health technologies make their way into healthcare systems and which may never come into existence.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article presents the findings from a study trip to Kaiser Permanente (KP), a private healthcare provider in the USA. The aim of the trip was to understand how healthcare integration is managed in KP and how this might help patients in the UK with motor neurone disease (MND). This article makes reference to the American and British healthcare systems, identifying the simple differences between health economies, and their impact on health care, with specific reference to MND. The trip was undertaken as part of the author's ongoing work on how patients with MND rate services delivered by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in the UK. The author's community matron role involves caring for patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) including long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs). In executing this role and in service delivery to patients with LTNCs, specifically MND, the author noticed a lack of robust integration, highlighting the need to consider and address the various contributory factors. This article presents a literature review and analyses the role of the MDT including specialist neurological professionals in executing duties and in delivering healthcare services to patients diagnosed with MND. The implications for practice are also presented along with areas for practice development.
Article: Editorial comment
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.