Click for next page ( 56

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 55
4 Next Steps The 20 areas selected in this pilot project would serve to guide a follow-up effort for national prior~ty-setting. The goals of this follow-up effort would be to: ~ expand the information base for national prion~-setting, stimulate the use or implementation of the selected pnonties, and modify and improve the pnonty-seuing methodology. The Institute of Medicine would help coordinate the development of information resources that would supply current information pertinent to sewing and acting upon the pnonties. Examples of this information include existing assessment reports, preliminary results of ongoing evalu- ative studies, infonnation about the capabilities and interests of assess- ment programs Mat may be appropriate for conducting these studies, and relevant data resources. The Institute of Medicine would convene interest pardes from differ- ent sectors in Me pnonW-setting process including those that need assessments and those that conduct assessment ensure Mat Me na- tional priorities are properly described and presented. In this mariner, the Institute of Medicine might serve as a coordinator to prompt or encourage the conduct of high-pnonty evaluations. This activity would be sum ported, in part, by collecting the information about assessment programs described above and by working with program representatives to ~econ- cile the national priorities with appropriate programs. This convening function would serge to enhance communication between groups Mat perform studies and groups that need the results of these studies and to 55

OCR for page 55
56 NATIONAL ~45.CF`CCME2VTPRlORI@I7ES furler test and develop the consensus approach for setting national pri- ondes. Better infonnabon about Me 20 priority areas and increased participa- don by interested parties win serve as a test for the methodology used In this study. The pnonW-sethng group that chose We 20 priority assess- ment areas applied the set of national pnonty-seuing criteria discussed above. Certainly, We composition and collective expertise of the group and the methodology used affected the choice of priorities. Furthermore, We relative importance of some of the topics chosen may change win time. Therefore, a follow-up effort that would help validate and strengthen the methodology used in this pilot effort is needed. For instance, a separate committee or group may undergo a similar process, paying particular attention to refining the criteria as necessary and to developing a more quantitative approach for predicting the potential impact of assess- ments of the candidate priority topics. Though these efforts the council aims to improve prionty-seuing to meet national needs. The council offers this pilot effort as We beginning of a process for enhancing the national capacity to use resources effec- dvely and efficiently for the evaluation of medical practice, to be raced five to the concerns of different health care sectors, and to provide timely information to advance medical practice and improve He quality of pa- tient care. The follow-up effort for national pnonty-sefflng proposed here would address, In pan, the provision in Section 927 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, P.~. 101-239, Hat cans for the Institute of Medicine 'ho develop and recommend to the Secretary (of Heath and Human Senrices) priorities for the assessment of specific health care mchnolog~es under Section 904 of He Public Health Service Act." Sec- don 904 cans for He Administrator of the new Agency for Heath Care Policy and Research to promote the development and application of appropriate health care technology assessments "by identifying needs in, and establishing priorities for, the assessment of specific health care technologies," and by other means (IJ.S. Congress, House, 1989~. win Aspect to infoIInation resources, Section 927 of P.1~. 101-239 also cans for He Institute of Medicine 'ho assist the A~nin~strator for Heal Cale Policy and Research, and He Director of He National Library of Medicine, In establishing He information center,' on heath care tech- nologies and health care technology assessment at He National library of Medicine, as required by He act. This center could offer the information resources needed ~ support pnonty-sefflng and assessments of pnon~ topics, as described above.