Health Technology Assessment as Part of a Broader Process for Priority Setting and Resource Allocation

Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case.

Methods

Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations.

Findings

The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility.

Interpretation

The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.

Validating the rigour of adaptive methods of economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

There has been a lot of debate on how to 'generalise' or 'translate' findings of economic evaluation (EE) or health technology assessment (HTA) to other country contexts. Researchers have used various adaptive HTA (aHTA) methods like model-adaptation, price-benchmarking, scorecard-approach, etc., for transferring evidence from one country to other. This study was undertaken to assess the degree of accuracy in results generated from aHTA approaches specifically for EE.

METHODS

By applying selected aHTA approaches, we adapted findings of globally published EE to Indian context. The first-step required identifying two interventions for which Indian EE (referred to as the 'Indian reference study') has been conducted. The next-step involved identification of globally published EE. The third-step required undertaking quality and transferability check. In the fourth step, outcomes of EE meeting transferability standards, were adapted using selected aHTA approaches. Lastly, adapted results were compared with findings of the Indian reference study.

RESULTS

The adapted cost estimates varied considerably, while adapted quality-adjusted life-years did not differ much, when matched with the Indian reference study. For intervention I (trastuzumab), adapted absolute costs were 11 and 6 times higher than the costs reported in the Indian reference study for control and intervention arms, respectively. Likewise, adapted incremental cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were around 3.5-8 times higher than the values reported in the Indian reference study. For intervention II (intensity-modulated radiation therapy), adapted absolute cost was 35% and 12% lower for the comparator and intervention arms, respectively, than the values reported in the Indian reference study. The mean incremental cost and ICER were 2.5 times and 1.5 times higher, respectively, than the Indian reference study values.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that findings from aHTA methods should be interpreted with caution. There is a need to develop more robust aHTA approaches for cost adjustment. aHTA may be used for 'topic prioritisation' within the overall HTA process, whereby interventions which are highly cost-ineffective, can be directly ruled out, thus saving time and resources for conducting full HTA for interventions that are not well studied or where evidence is inconclusive.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Productivity Losses/Gains in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Immune-Mediated Disorders

INTRODUCTION

In light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost-utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE® In-process, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2010 to October 2020 by two independent reviewers for all CEAs and CUAs in adults with any of the following conditions: ankylosing spondylitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and ulcerative colitis. Relevant study data were extracted and evidence was synthesized for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Productivity cost elements including absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment/early retirement, premature mortality and informal care were extracted, along with the method used to determine them. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the inclusion of productivity loss.

RESULTS

Our searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making.

Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy

There is growing interest in cost-effectiveness thresholds as a tool to inform resource allocation decisions in health care. Studies from several countries have sought to estimate health system opportunity costs, which supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds are intended to represent. In this paper, we consider the role of empirical estimates of supply-side thresholds in policy-making. Recent studies estimate the cost per unit of health based on average displacement or outcome elasticity. We distinguish the types of point estimates reported in empirical work, including marginal productivity, average displacement, and outcome elasticity. Using this classification, we summarise the limitations of current approaches to threshold estimation in terms of theory, methods, and data. We highlight the questions that arise from alternative interpretations of thresholds and provide recommendations to policymakers seeking to use a supply-side threshold where the evidence base is emerging or incomplete. We recommend that: (1) policymakers must clearly define the scope of the application of a threshold, and the theoretical basis for empirical estimates should be consistent with that scope; (2) a process for the assessment of new evidence and for determining changes in the threshold to be applied in policy-making should be created; (3) decision-making processes should retain flexibility in the application of a threshold; and (4) policymakers should provide support for decision-makers relating to the use of thresholds and the implementation of decisions stemming from their application.

HTA Training for Healthcare Professionals: International Overview of Initiatives Provided by HTA Agencies and Organizations

Background

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process that synthesizes, with a systematic, transparent, impartial and robust methodological approach, the main information on the medical, economic, ethical and social implications of the use and dissemination of a health technology. Its aim is to support decision-makers in identifying safe, effective, patient-centered and best-value health policies, in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system. Given the continued application of innovative technologies into clinical practice, healthcare professionals need to be able to adequately evaluate these technologies using evidence-based approaches such as HTA. Therefore, the implementation of training in HTA is crucial. The aim of this study was to investigate existing HTA training initiatives for healthcare professionals provided by international HTA agencies and organizations around the world.

Methods

From March to November 2020, the websites of HTA agencies and organizations belonging to the European network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and to the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), and the website of the HTA International (HTAi), were explored for identifying the HTA training initiatives directed to healthcare professionals. In addition, we screened the training initiatives proposed at European level by EUnetHTA as part of its Joint Actions and conducted in collaboration with its public-private partners. Specific keywords were searched in English and adapted to French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and German. Data extraction of the retrieved training initiatives was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021 and considered the following information: agency, country, website, coordinator, type of initiative, target, topic, main contents, and language.

Results

Out of 124 agencies/organizations/EUnetHTA public-private partners screened, only 21 provided training initiatives for healthcare professionals. A total of 55 training initiatives were analyzed, 85.5% of which were delivered at the European level and 14.5% at the international level. The countries with a greater number of courses were: Austria, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Twenty-one training initiatives focused on HTA application and methodology while 34 on specific HTA domains, particularly on the economic one. The technologies covered were mainly drugs.

Conclusions

Our study revealed a limited number of HTA training programs targeting healthcare professionals. HTA supports the decision-making processes concerning the use and application of health technologies with scientific evidence. Indeed, training of healthcare professionals in this field should be a key driver in implementing evidence-based healthcare choices and through rigorous methodological approaches such as HTA, in order to ensure proper health governance and value-based application of technological innovations in clinical practice. Therefore, capacity building of healthcare professionals in this area should be enhanced by using appropriate and effective training initiatives and educational strategies.

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken.

RESULTS

Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely.

CONCLUSION

Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

CONTEXT

'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.

METHODS

This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses.

FINDINGS

Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.

METHODS

An online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).

RESULTS

We found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due to growing expenditures, health systems have been pushed to improve decision-making practices on resource allocation. This study aimed to identify which practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) have been used in healthcare systems of high-income countries.

METHODS

A scoping literature review (2007-2019) was conducted to map empirical PSRA activities. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. That was complemented with a gray literature and horizontal scanning. A narrative synthesis was carried out to make sense of the existing literature and current state of PSRA practices in healthcare.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred eighty five references were found in the peer-reviewed literature and 25 papers were selected for full-review. We identified three major types of decision-making framework in PSRA: 1) Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA); 2) Health Technology Assessment (HTA); and 3) Multiple-criteria value assessment. Our narrative synthesis indicates these formal frameworks of priority setting and resource allocation have been mostly implemented in episodic exercises with poor follow-up and evaluation. There seems to be growing interest for explicit robust rationales and ample stakeholder involvement, but that has not been the norm in the process of allocating resources within healthcare systems of high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

No single dominate framework for PSRA appeared as the preferred approach across jurisdictions, but common elements exist both in terms of process and structure. Decision-makers worldwide can draw on our work in designing and implementing PSRA processes in their contexts.

Using a Formal Strategy of Priority Setting to Mitigate Austerity Effects Through Gains in Value: The Role of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System

The fiscal regime implemented in Brazil with the constitutional amendment 95 (EC-95) of December 2016 froze primary expenditures for 20 years, including healthcare spending. Previous studies have estimated strong negative effects of this policy on the health of Brazilians. Although there has been a constant pressure to repeal EC-95, this policy is unlikely to be changed in the near future. Thus, there is also a need to take actions within its own terms in order to mitigate its harmful consequences on population health. Shedding light on the existing evidence about the impact of austerity on health, the present work discusses how decision-makers can use a formal framework of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation to tackle the amplified budgetary strain. Drawing on principles of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), efficiency can be improved by shifting spending from low-value to higher-value areas, avoiding the "across-the-board cut" caused by non-differential consideration of expenditures in a context of mismatched growth of demand and supply of healthcare. By evaluating opportunity costs of investment and disinvestment proposals on the basis of multiple criteria and marginal analysis, the Brazilian public healthcare system could obtain gains in value, achieving better performance and attenuating the relative decline in spending on health brought by an austerity scenario.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.