Untangling the Complexity of Funding Recommendations: A Comparative Analysis of Health Technology Assessment Outcomes in Four European Countries

Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

OBJECTIVES

Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process.

RESULTS

While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.

Health Technology Assessment-Informed Decision Making by the Federal Joint Committee/Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England: The Role of Budget Impact

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test (official) evaluation criteria including the potential role of budget impact (BI) on health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes published by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss [GBA]) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from all publicly available GBA decisions and IQWiG assessments as well as NICE single technology appraisals between January 2011 and June 2018, and information with regard to evaluation criteria used by these agencies was collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to estimate the effect of the BI on the HTA outcomes while controlling for criteria used by GBA/IQWiG and NICE.

RESULTS

NICE recommendations are largely driven by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and, if applicable, by end-of-life criteria (P < .01). While IQWiG assessments are significantly affected by the availability of randomized controlled trials and patient-relevant endpoints (P < .01), GBA appraisals primarily focus on endpoints (P < .01). The BI correlated with NICE single technology appraisals (inverted-U relationship, P < .1) and IQWiG recommendations (increasing linear relationship, P < .05), but not with GBA decisions (P > .1). Nevertheless, given that IQWiG assessments seem to be more rigorous than GBA appraisals regarding the consideration of evidence-based evaluation criteria, decisions by GBA might be negatively associated with the BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reveal that GBA/IQWiG and NICE follow their official evaluation criteria consistently. After controlling for all significant variables, the BI seems to have an (independent) effect on HTA outcomes as well.

Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is much interest from stakeholders in understanding how health technology assessment (HTA) committees make national funding decisions for health technologies. A growing literature has analysed past decisions by committees (revealed preference, RP studies) and hypothetical decisions by committee members (stated preference, SP studies) to identify factors influencing decisions and assess their importance.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to provide insight into committee preferences for these factors (after controlling for other factors) and the methods used to elicit them.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, Embase, Econlit and Web of Science were searched from inception to 11 May 2017. Included studies had to have investigated factors considered by HTA committees and to have conducted multivariate analysis to identify the effect of each factor on funding decisions. Factors were classified as being important based on statistical significance, and their impact on decisions was compared using marginal effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RP and four SP studies (containing 42 analyses) of 14 HTA committees met the inclusion criteria. Although factors were defined differently, the SP literature generally found clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and equity factors (such as disease severity) were each important to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. These findings were supported by the RP studies of the PBAC, but not the other committees, which found funding decisions by these and other committees were mostly influenced by the acceptance of the clinical evidence and, where applicable, cost-effectiveness. Trust in the evidence was very important for decision makers, equivalent to reducing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) by A$38,000 (Australian dollars) for the PBAC and £15,000 for NICE.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found trust in the clinical evidence and, where applicable, cost-effectiveness were important for decision makers. Many methodological differences likely contributed to the diversity in some of the other findings across studies of the same committee. Further work is needed to better understand how competing factors are valued by different HTA committees.