others will provide a sound basis for change, and organizations should constantly reexamine their methods for setting priorities. When making any changes, these groups should consider carefully whether modifying a given element might adversely affect the performance of the entire process.

In proposing a strategy for an optimal priority-setting process, the committee realizes that funding for technology assessment is already constrained and that its proposed priority-setting system will require some additional resources. Given the potential value of priority setting, however, the funding for this effort appears to be justified.

The committee views its report as a strategic effort to look ahead to reasonable goals for AHCPR and OHTA and to create a process that will be credible, sound, and defensible. During the process of compiling data for the quantitative model, OHTA will create a valuable data base and a ranking of priorities; both will be important resources for other organizations as well as for OHTA itself. Indeed, such a program could lead not only to wise use of public and private resources for technology assessment but also to an increase in public support for the entire technology assessment process.

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