Towards Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Improving Decision Making in Selected Countries

Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally

BACKGROUND

Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products.

METHODS

This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023.

RESULTS

Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.

Value-based payment for high-cost treatments in Singapore: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives

OBJECTIVES

The rising costs of drugs have necessitated the exploration of innovative payment methods in healthcare systems. Risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) have been implemented in many countries as a value-based payment mechanism to manage the uncertainty associated with expensive technologies. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on value-based payment in the Singaporean context, providing insights for future directions in health technology assessment and financing.

METHODS

This descriptive qualitative inquiry involved participant interviews conducted between October 2021 and April 2022. Thematic analysis was conducted in two phases to analyze the interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Seventeen respondents participated in the study, and five key themes emerged from the analysis. Stakeholders viewed RSAs as moderately positive, despite limited experience with them. They emphasized the importance of clearly defining objectives and establishing transparent criteria for implementing these schemes. The current data infrastructure was identified as both a barrier and facilitator, as RSAs impose administrative burdens. To successfully implement these payment mechanisms, capacity building, and effective stakeholder engagement that fosters mutual trust and cocreation are crucial.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms previously identified barriers and facilitators to successful RSA implementation while contextualizing them within the Singaporean setting. The findings suggest that value-based payment has the potential to address uncertainty and improve access to healthcare technologies, but these barriers must be addressed for the schemes to be effective.

Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim: There is growing interest in novel insulin management systems that improve glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of smart connected insulin re-usable pens or caps for disposable insulin pens versus pens without connected capabilities in the management of adult patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) from a Canadian societal perspective. Materials & methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was utilized to conduct the analyses. Applying data from a non-interventional study, the connected insulin device arm was assumed to result in greater reductions (-0.67%) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline and fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events (-32.87 events/patient annually). Macro- and micro-vascular risks were predicted using the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study data. Direct and indirect costs and utilities were sourced from literature. Key model outcomes included life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and effects were annually discounted at 1.5% over a 60-year time horizon. Uncertainty was explored in scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The connected insulin pen device was associated with lower mean discounted total costs (CAD221,943 vs 266,199; -CAD44,256), improvement in mean life expectancy (25.78 vs 24.29; +1.49 years) and gains in QALYs (18.48 vs 16.74; +1.75 QALYs) over the patient's lifetime. Most scenario analyses confirmed the base case results. The PSA showed dominance in 99.5% of cases. Conclusion: For adults with T1DM in Canada, a connected insulin pen device is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option associated with greater clinical benefits and lower costs relative to a standard re-usable or disposable pen.

How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe : Better access to medicines through HTA

INTRODUCTION

Access to medicines is a shared goal across healthcare stakeholders. Since health technology assessment (HTA) informs funding decisions, it shapes access to medicines. Despite its wide implementation, significant access variations due to HTA are observed across Europe. This paper elicited the opinions of European stakeholders on how HTA can be improved to facilitate access.

METHODS

A scoping review identified HTA features that influence access to medicines within markets and areas for improvement, while three access dimensions were identified (availability, affordability, timeliness). Using the Delphi method, we elicited the opinions of European stakeholders to validate the literature findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants from 14 countries participated in the Delphi panel. Thirteen HTA features that could be improved to optimise access to medicines in Europe were identified. Of these, 11 recorded a positive impact on at least one of the three access dimensions. HTA features had mostly a positive impact on timeliness and a less clear impact on affordability. 'Early scientific advice' and 'clarity in evidentiary requirements' showed a positive impact on all access dimensions. 'Established ways to deal with uncertainty during HTA' could improve medicines' availability and timeliness, while more 'reliance on real-world evidence' could expedite time to market access.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reiterate that increased transparency during HTA and the decision-making processes is essential; the use of and reliance on new evidence generation such as real-world evidence can optimise the availability of medicines; and better collaborations between regulatory institutions within and between countries are paramount for better access to medicines.

Implementing outcomes-based risk-sharing agreements: an integrative review of applications in blood cancer in the UK and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes-based risk-sharing agreements (OBRSA) have been increasingly used worldwide to manage uncertainty in value assessments. This review aimed to summarize motivations, barriers, and facilitators to implementing OBRSAs with a specific focus on therapies for hematological cancer.

AREAS COVERED

An integrative review was conducted based on a scoping of existing reviews on the topic and reports published by UK NICE. Findings from 16 articles and 10 reports were summarized and categorized into three themes: applications in blood cancer drugs, motivations for adoption, and barriers and facilitators to implementation.

EXPERT OPINION

There was a dissociation between the theoretical basis for opting for OBRSAs, and reasons stated or inferred from practice. The administrative burden was considered a notable barrier to implementation, which affects not only payers and manufacturers but also healthcare providers. Effective stakeholder engagement and building mutual trust among key groups were identified as factors enabling successful implementation. The review raises essential considerations in implementing OBRSAs and implications for their future role, particularly for blood cancer drugs where uncertainty is rife. Carefully designed and managed schemes may remain an option for health systems to manage risks involved when funding high-cost treatments.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.

METHODS

Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.

RESULTS

EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.

Systematic literature review on the implicit factors influencing the HTA deliberative process in Europe

Objectives

Deliberative processes in Health Technologies Assessment (HTA) result in recommendations that determine the reimbursement of medicines, diagnostics or devices. These processes are governed by explicit criteria, but are also influenced by implicit factors. The objective of this work was to identify the implicit factors influencing HTA deliberative processes in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

Methods

A systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2019 was conducted. The search was performed in Pubmed, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Center for Reviews and Dissemination. The ISPOR database was searched manually.

Results

Out of 100 eligible publications, eight articles were selected for data extraction and analysis. The implicit factors in the HTA deliberative process most frequently mentioned in the identified literature are value judgments, biases, preferences and subjectivity. Five out of the eight articles highlight the need to further improve the transparency of the process, and three provide recommendations on how to address the influence of implicit factors on the HTA deliberative process through a framework.

Conclusion

Even in countries with a long HTA history, evidence on implicit factors is scarce. Some methods have been recommended for addressing these factors. Further research is required to characterize the implicit factors in the HTA deliberative process at a country level and explore potential ways to mitigate the influence of these factors on the HTA deliberative process.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

Objectives

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stake-holders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

Methods

The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

Results

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

Conclusions

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

OBJECTIVES

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

METHODS

The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review.

RESULTS

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Developing a tool to assess the skills to perform a health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) brings together evidence from various disciplines while using explicit methods to assess the value of health technologies. In resource-constrained settings, there is a growing demand to measure and develop specialist skills, including those for HTA, to aid the implementation of Universal Healthcare Coverage. The purpose of this study was twofold: a) to find validated tools for the assessment of the technical capacity to conduct a HTA, and if none were found, to develop a tool, and b) to describe experiences of its pilot.

Methods

First, a mapping review identified tools to assess the skills to conduct a HTA. A medical librarian conducted a comprehensive search in four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC). Then, incorporating results from the mapping and following an iterative process involving stakeholders and experts, we developed a HTA skills assessment tool. Finally, using an online platform to gather and analyse responses, in collaboration with our institutional partner, we piloted the tool in Ghana, and sought feedback on their experiences.

Results

The database search yielded 3871 records; fifteen those were selected based on a priori criteria. These records were published between 2003 and 2018, but none covered all technical skills to conduct a HTA. In the absence of an instrument meeting our needs, we developed a HTA skill assessment tool containing four sections (general information, core and soft skills, and future needs). The tool was designed to be administered to a broad range of individuals who would potentially contribute to the planning, delivery and evaluation of HTA. The tool was piloted with twenty-three individuals who completed the skills assessment and shared their initial impressions of the tool.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive tool enabling the assessment of technical skills to conduct a HTA. This tool allows teams to understand where their individual strengths and weakness lie. The tool is in the early validation phases and further testing is needed.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01562-4.

Topic selection process in health technology assessment agencies around the world: a systematic review

Objective

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the process for topic selection by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world to provide the knowledge base for the improvement of topic selection frameworks in HTA agencies.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE to identify papers up to February 2019. Gray literature was identified by screening the Web sites of HTA agencies on the nonprofit member list of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Data were extracted for each HTA agency and synthesized, with issues including general contextual information about each agency and the process of topic selection.

Results

Out of forty-nine nonprofit members of INAHTA, a total of seventeen HTA agencies with a framework for topic selection were identified from twenty-two included papers/documents. Multiple criteria were used for topic selection in all frameworks and agencies undertook multiple steps, which could include the specification of criteria for topic selection, identification of topics, short listing of potential topics, scoping of potential topics, scoring and ranking of potential topics, and deliberation and decision on final topics for HTA. Shortcomings were found in relation to methods of scoring and ranking as well as lack of monitoring and the evaluation of the process.

Conclusions

Our study provides insights into the current practice of topic selection in HTA agencies. Multiple criteria decision analysis methodology appears highly relevant to these processes. A consensus approach for the development of methods of topic selection would be valuable for the HTA community.

Differences between health technology assessment topics in high- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has encountered different issues and challenges over the last two decades. The main purpose of this research is to review the issues and challenges in high- and middle-income countries through reviewing studies related to the HTA.

METHODS

The HTA area literature of different countries was collected from 2009 to 2020 and analyzed using scoping review, based on Scopus and WoS databases.

RESULTS

Given the fact that the HTA is practically done in high- and middle-income countries, the results of reviewing the studies and articles of countries reveal that high-income countries seek to increase the participation of stakeholders and enhance the transparency of processes, policy-making, and regulation of the HTA, as well as the systematization of various participant institutions in this area. Middle-income countries, on the other hand, are mostly involved in raising awareness, training and skill development of HTA-related staff, institutionalizing the concept of HTA, and allocating appropriate resources for effective and safe decision-making in their health system.

CONCLUSION

The problem of incoordination between stakeholders (participant institutions) in the HTA, and thereby, problems in decision-making were found in many of the studied reports and articles. Thus, one of the useful efforts to be made by different countries to maintain the integrity of this system would be the process of involving all members of this system and the formation of a healthy ecosystem in the HTA.

Health technology assessment (HTA) in England, France and Germany: what do matched drug pairs tell us about recommendations by national HTA agencies?

Aims: To explore health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes of matched drug pairs by national agencies in Germany (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, GBA), France (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) and England and Wales (NICE). Methods: We considered published GBA decisions, HAS reports and NICE guidance from January 2011 to June 2018. HTAs of matched pairs were compared overall, and for non-cancer and cancer drugs separately. We further analyzed the role of additional attributes related to cancer therapies. Results: Matched pairs show higher concordance for GBA/HAS than for GBA/NICE and HAS/NICE. Overall, NICE evaluated technologies more favorably than GBA and HAS. GBA appraisals of cancer drugs, however, tended to be more positive than cancer-related recommendations by NICE and HAS. Conclusion: The findings indicate substantial variations in HTAs, although cancer-related outcomes seem to diverge less than non-cancer results.

Manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement in South Korea

This study aimed to evaluate manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement and to formulate implications in operating a health technology assessment system. In 2019, we conducted a questionnaire survey and a semistructured group interview for domestic (n = 6) and foreign manufacturers (n = 9) who had vast experience in introducing new medicines into the market through a health technology assessment. Representatives of manufacturers indicated that disease severity, budget impact, existence of alternative treatment, and health-related quality of life were relevant criteria when assessing reimbursement decisions. Compared with domestic manufacturers, foreign manufacturers were risk takers when making reimbursement decisions in terms of adopting a new drug and managing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, foreign manufacturers were risk-averse when evaluating new drugs with uncertainties based on real-world data such as clinical effectiveness. Based on manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement, there is room for improvement in health technology assessment systems. Explaining the underlying reasons behind their decisions, unbiased participation by various stakeholders and their embedded roles in the decision-making process need to be emphasized. However, the measures suggested in this study should be introduced with cautions. The process of health technology assessment might be a target for those who undermine the system in pursuit of their private interests.

Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies

Differing contexts have greatly influenced HTA development in various countries, with considerable effort recently made by international HTA networks (e.g., EUnetHTA) and the European Union (EU) to make HTA a more coherent, equal, and efficient process. Medical devices (MDs) present particular challenges for HTA because of frequent, rapid innovation, outcomes influenced by end-user competence, dynamic pricing and often low-quality scientific evidence. Our objective is to describe the development, structure and governance of a National HTA Program for MDs (PNHTADM) in Italy, a highly participatory, stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based process to reform a fragmented system of appraisal and approval. Based largely on EUnetHTA methods, the resulting process delineates a standardized system for proposing MDs by any stakeholders, accrediting HTA producers, setting criteria for prioritization and appraisals, and innovatively linking recommendations with coverage, reimbursement and procurement of MDs. Expected benefits include reduced disparities in pricing and reimbursement policies and improved access to new technologies across 21 regional healthcare systems in Italy's decentralized, universal system, complete with provisions to require additional evidence collection and centrally monitor diffusion. Though devised for Italy, the design, resources and underlying analysis provide a framework for other nations seeking to consolidate HTA initiatives, particularly in light of new EU regulation.

Key Issues Surrounding Appropriate Antibiotic Use for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review and the Implications

BACKGROUND

There is a concern with the growing use of antimicrobials across countries increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates. A key area within hospitals is their use for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) with concerns with timing of the first dose, which can appreciably impact on effectiveness, as well as duration with extended prophylaxis common among low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is a concern as extended duration increases utilization rates and AMR as well as adverse events. Consequently, there is a need to document issues of timing and duration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) among LMICs together with potential ways forward to address current concerns.

METHODS

Narrative review of timings and duration of SAP among LMICs combined with publications documenting successful approaches to improve SAP to provide future direction to all key stakeholder groups.

RESULTS

There were documented concerns with the timing of the first dose of antibiotics, with appropriate timing as low as 6.7% in Egypt, although as high as 81.9% in Turkey. There was also an extensive duration of SAP, ranging from long duration times in all patients in a study in Nigeria with a mean of 8.7 days and 97% of patients in Egypt to 42.9% of patients in Pakistan and 35% in Turkey. Successful interventions to improve SAP typically involved multiple approaches including education of all key stakeholder groups, monitoring of usage against agreed guidelines,as well as quality targets. Multiple approaches typically improved timing and duration as well as reduced costs. For instance, in one study appropriateness increased from 30.1% to 91.4%, prolonged duration reduced to 5.7% of patients, and mean costs of antibiotics decreased 11-fold.

CONCLUSION

There are considerable concerns with the timing and duration of SAP among LMICs. Multiple interventions among LMICs can address this providing future directions.

Pilot approach to analyzing patient and citizen involvement in health technology assessment in four diverse low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) striving to achieve universal health coverage, the involvement of different stakeholders in formal or informal ways in health technology assessment (HTA) must be culturally and socially relevant and acceptable. Challenges may be different from those seen in high-income countries. In this article, we aimed to pilot a questionnaire for uncovering the context-related aspects of patient and citizen involvement (PCI) in LMICs, collecting experiences encountered with PCI, and identifying opportunities for patients and citizens toward contributing to local decision- and policy-making processes related to health technologies.

METHODS

Through a collaborative, international multi-stakeholder initiative, a questionnaire was developed for describing each LMIC's healthcare system context and the emergence of opportunities for PCI relating to HTA. The questionnaire was piloted in the first set of countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was successfully applied across four diverse LMICs, which are at different stages of using HTA to inform decision making. Only in Brazil, formal ways of PCI have been defined. In the other countries, there is informal influence that is contingent upon the engagement level of patient and citizen advocacy groups (PCAGs), usually strongest in areas such as HIV/AIDS, TB, oncology, or rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire can be used to analyze the options for patients and citizens to participate in HTA or healthcare decision making. It will be rolled out to more LMICs to describe the requirements and opportunities for PCI in the context of LMICs and to identify possible routes and methodologies for devising a more systematic and formalized PCI in LMICs.

Qualitative comparative analysis of health economic evaluation guidelines for health technology assessment in European countries

OBJECTIVE

To classify, analyze, and compare published guidelines for economic evaluation within health technology assessment (HTA) in European countries and highlight differences and similarities.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to identify published guidance for the conduct and assessment of economic evaluation studies that are undertaken within the context of HTA processes in European countries. Organizations and working groups were identified via the ISPOR, INAHTA, and EUnetHTA databases. Following the identification of official documents, we performed a qualitative content analysis to highlight discrepancies or common practices under the following categories: comparator, perspective on costs/benefits, time horizon, economic evaluation method, instrument used for utility measurement, outcome measure, source for efficacy, modeling, sensitivity analysis, discounting, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

A total of nineteen guidance documents were identified (in English) providing data for the analysis in nineteen countries. The comparative content analysis identified common practices in most countries regarding the approaches to the choice of comparator, source of data, the preferred economic evaluation method, the option for a lifetime analytical horizon, discounting, and the choice of key outcome measure-for which, most countries recommend the use of the EQ-5D instrument. Differences were mainly found in the choice of perspective, dealing with uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, the use of end points, and the required use of modeling.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of economic evaluation constitutes one of the key pillars of the HTA process in Europe. Although a methodological convergence has occurred during the last few years, notable differences still remain.

Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime

The challenge of novel and high cost health technologies has encouraged the growth of regulatory agencies such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations and Group Procurement Organizations (GPO). Yet the existence of several agencies in the same polycentric regulatory regime raises questions about whether and how their work can be coordinated. Drawing on a case study of GPOs and HTA agencies across four provinces in Canada, involving document review and key informant interviews (n = 44) conducted between 2013 and 2016, we explore the separate evolution of these agencies, emerging connections between them for non-drug technologies, and the organizational processes and evaluative judgments that underpin coordination efforts. HTA agencies and GPOs developed separately; connections emerged recently in three provinces and suggest four modes of coordination. One mode aligns most closely with that recommended by health economists and HTA practitioners, whereby HTA precedes procurement, with coverage decisions informing technology acquisition. The second mode is a version of the first, where procurement refers cases to HTA for coverage or technology management support; unlike the first, it recognizes procurement's evaluative strengths. Yet both the first and second modes focus on exceptional cases and will be infrequent. The third mode is more systemic, reflecting a generalized complementary of purpose as public agencies. HTA could support GPOs in contested technology acquisition efforts through timely and responsive input, while procurement could expand HTA's impact and inform HTA's growing interest in responsible innovation and environmental sustainability. The final mode is non-coordination, reflecting the potential for agencies to occupy quite distinct regulatory niches within the same regime. We conclude that consistency and convergence around a single model of resource allocation is not inevitable; nor is it necessary for coordinated effort. Thus, where differences in regulatory practice and epistemology persist, mutual accommodation and shared learning may prove most productive.

Health Technology Assessment and private health insurance in Brazil: a scoping review and document analysis

RESUMO A Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS) respalda políticas públicas na gestão de tecnologias em diversos países. No Brasil, a institucionalização da ATS se iniciou em 2000, no Ministério da Saúde, e contou com a participação da Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS). Contudo, o sistema público e a saúde suplementar trilharam diferentes caminhos. Processos distintos de ATS podem gerar retrabalho, ineficiência e aumentar as inequidades entre o público e o privado. O objetivo desta pesquisa foi identificar a dualidade entre o público e o privado relativa aos modelos de ATS implantados no País. Realizou-se uma revisão de escopo da literatura no período de 2000 a 2019 nas bases de dados Medline, Scopus, Web of Science e Lilacs. Também se realizou análise de documentos da ANS relativos ao processo de ATS na saúde suplementar. A revisão da literatura constatou a escassez de artigos sobre o tema, enquanto a análise documental permitiu traçar uma linha do tempo com os principais marcos referentes ao processo de ATS da Agência. Concluiu-se que a coordenação nacional de um modelo de ATS é desejada, visando a aumentar a transparência das instituições, a maior credibilidade das suas decisões, maior eficiência do processo e proporcionar maior equidade.

Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde na saúde suplementar brasileira: revisão de escopo e análise documental

RESUMO A Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS) respalda políticas públicas na gestão de tecnologias em diversos países. No Brasil, a institucionalização da ATS se iniciou em 2000, no Ministério da Saúde, e contou com a participação da Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS). Contudo, o sistema público e a saúde suplementar trilharam diferentes caminhos. Processos distintos de ATS podem gerar retrabalho, ineficiência e aumentar as inequidades entre o público e o privado. O objetivo desta pesquisa foi identificar a dualidade entre o público e o privado relativa aos modelos de ATS implantados no País. Realizou-se uma revisão de escopo da literatura no período de 2000 a 2019 nas bases de dados Medline, Scopus, Web of Science e Lilacs. Também se realizou análise de documentos da ANS relativos ao processo de ATS na saúde suplementar. A revisão da literatura constatou a escassez de artigos sobre o tema, enquanto a análise documental permitiu traçar uma linha do tempo com os principais marcos referentes ao processo de ATS da Agência. Concluiu-se que a coordenação nacional de um modelo de ATS é desejada, visando a aumentar a transparência das instituições, a maior credibilidade das suas decisões, maior eficiência do processo e proporcionar maior equidade.

Methods for the health technology assessment of complex interventions: a protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

In healthcare policy and economic literature, research on the health technology assessment (HTA) of complex interventions (CIs) is becoming increasingly important. In many developed countries, HTA guides decision-making to help achieve greater value for money when funding health care. However, research has yet to identify the forms of evidence and evaluation criteria that should be used in the HTA of CIs. Previous research has established that the HTA of CIs requires multiple factors to be evaluated but there is no agreement on which factors ought always to be considered. There is equally little agreement on which forms of evidence ought to be collected or synthesised and how. We plan to perform a systematic scoping review in order to identify the range of evaluation criteria and types of evidence currently used in the HTA of CIs.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was developed to guide the methodological framework for the conduct of a scoping review on health technology assessment (HTA) of complex interventions (CIs), using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the six-stage framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, in addition to more recent innovations in scoping review methodology. A grey literature search will supplement the primary searches of seven electronic databases for studies available in English between January 2000 and August 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen all search results for inclusion and data will be extracted using a customised data extraction or charting form. Any dispute will be resolved by consensus or through arbitration by a third author. The mnemonic Population, Concept and Context will be adopted to establish criteria for selecting relevant literature, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Extension for Scoping Review will be used for reporting the results. Several explanatory-descriptive methods will be used for analysing the extracted data including frequency and trend analyses as well as reflexive thematic coding and analysis.Mapping evidence on the HTA of CIs will allow us to gain a better understanding of both established and emerging practices, including the information types, requirements, values and parameters that are incorporated in the HTA of CIs. We also expect the findings of the scoping review to help identify research gaps that will guide future studies. As healthcare becomes more complex in its delivery, it is timely to determine how these complex interventions should be assessed so that policy decisions can be made about whether implementation and public funding is warranted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review will involve secondary analysis of already collected data, and thus, does not require ethics approval. The research findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and will also be disseminated at conferences and seminars.

Conceptualising characteristics of resources withdrawal from medical services: a systematic qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Terms used to describe government-led resource withdrawal from ineffective and unsafe medical services, including 'rationing' and 'disinvestment', have tended to be used interchangeably, despite having distinct characteristics. This lack of descriptive precision for arguably distinct terms contributes to the obscurity that hinders effective communication and the achievement of evidence-based decision-making. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the various terms used to describe resource withdrawal and (2) propose definitions for the key or foundational terms, which includes a clear description of the unique characteristics of each.

METHODS

This is a systematic qualitative synthesis of characteristics and terms found through a search of the academic and grey literature. This approach involved identifying commonly used resource withdrawal terms, extracting data about resource withdrawal characteristics associated with each term and conducting a comparative analysis by categorising elements as antecedents, attributes or outcomes.

RESULTS

Findings from an analysis of 106 documents demonstrated that terms used to describe resource withdrawal are inconsistently defined and applied. The characteristics associated with these terms, mainly antecedents and attributes, are used interchangeably by many authors but are differentiated by others. Our analysis resulted in the development of a framework that organises these characteristics to demonstrate the unique attributes associated with each term. To enhance precision, these terms were classified as either policy options or patient health outcomes and refined definitions for rationing and disinvestment were developed. Rationing was defined as resource withdrawal that denies, on average, patient health benefits. Disinvestment was defined as resource withdrawal that results in, on average, improved or no change in health benefits.

CONCLUSION

Agreement on the definition of various resource withdrawal terms and their key characteristics is required for transparent government decision-making regarding medical service withdrawal. This systematic qualitative synthesis presents the proposed definitions of resource withdrawal terms that will promote consistency, benefit public policy dialogue and enhance the policy-making process for health systems.

Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment

Deliberative processes are a well-established part of health technology assessment (HTA) programs in a number of high- and middle-income countries, and serve to combine complex sets of evidence, perspectives, and values to support open, transparent, and accountable decision making. Nevertheless, there is little documentation and research to inform the development of effective and efficient deliberative processes, and to evaluate their quality. This article summarizes the 2020 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussion on deliberative processes in HTA.Through a combination of small and large group discussion and successive rounds of polling, the GPF members reached strong agreement on three core principles for deliberative processes in HTA: transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality. In addition, discussions revealed other important principles, such as respect, reviewability, consistency, and reasonableness, that may supplement the core set. A number of associated supporting actions for each of the principles are also described in order to make each principle realizable in a given HTA setting. The relative importance of the principles and actions are context-sensitive and must be considered in light of the political, legislative, and operational factors that may influence the functioning of any particular HTA environment within which the deliberative process is situated. The paper ends with suggested concrete next steps that HTA agencies, researchers, and stakeholders might take to move the field forward. The proposed principles and actions, and the next steps, provide a springboard for further research and better documentation of important aspects of deliberation that have historically been infrequently studied.

Disagreement on cancer drug decisions in Europe

OBJECTIVES

Despite the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote voluntary cooperation among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, different reimbursement decisions for the same drug are made across European countries. The aim of this paper is to compare the agreement of cancer drug reimbursement decisions using inter-rater reliability measures.

METHODS

This study is based on primary data on 161 cancer drug reimbursement decisions from nine European countries from 2002 to 2014. To achieve our goal, we use two measures to analyze agreement, in other words, congruency: (i) percentage of agreement and (ii) the κ score.

RESULTS

One main conclusion can be drawn from the analysis. There is a weak to medium agreement among cancer drug decisions in the European countries analyzed (based on the percentage of agreement and the κ score). England and Scotland show the highest consistency between the two measures, showing a medium agreement. These results are in line with previous literature on the congruency of HTA decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper contributes to the HTA literature, by highlighting the extent of weak to medium agreement among cancer decisions in Europe.

The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration

Background

An international joint task group co-led by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) has developed a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA.

Methods

The task group, consisting of representatives of leading HTA networks, societies and global organizations, developed guiding principles for the process and followed an established consultation plan with the broader HTA community to develop the definition.

Results

The consensus achieved by the international joint task group brings the collective weight of the participating networks, societies, and organizations behind the new definition.

Conclusion

The new definition of HTA is an historic achievement and it is offered to the current and emerging HTA world as a cornerstone reference for today and into the future.

Drug Selection for Formulary Inclusion: An Exploratory Case Study of Oncology Medicines in Jordan

BACKGROUND

Access to healthcare services including innovative treatments is one of the most important objectives of healthcare system in Jordan. This research summarized one of the actual practices pertaining to health priority setting in Jordan with official requirement to use cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To address the role of economic evidence to inform the decisions and rationales drawn by health policy experts to optimize resources mobilization for new cancer drugs.

METHOD

The research reported a case study of formulary setting priority in Jordan. Documentary collation and analysis of a secondary source (meeting minutes) produced by decision committee were conducted by the research team. The decisions and rationales shaped by panelists for 22 newly registered oncology drugs at Jordan Food and Drug Administration were reviewed and described.

RESULTS

It was found that the absence of official health economic guidelines in the country and informal use of cost-effectiveness analysis by the panelists appeared to flaw the importance of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Nevertheless, "the lower the ICER, the better the drug" was the primary factor in all committee's decisions to inform resources mobilization. Despite of the latter, 7 drugs were selected for formulary inclusion for different oncology disease areas in Jordan.

CONCLUSIONS

Priority setting for new cancer drugs is not well-informed in Jordan. Nevertheless, this research revealed different disadvantages that appear to militate against the perspective of the study. Recommendations for implementation and enhancement of health economic evaluation include further investment in capacity building (eg, prepare qualified health economists) and create incentive to improve availability and accessibility of local data.

Reimbursement Lag of New Drugs Under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System Compared With United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea

Drug lag—delayed approval or reimbursement—is a major barrier to accessing cutting‐edge drugs. Unlike approval lag, reimbursement lag is under‐researched. We investigated the key determinants of reimbursement lag under Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI), and compared this lag with those in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Using retrospective data on 190 new NHI‐reimbursed drugs from 2007 to 2014, we studied reimbursement lag in Taiwan vs. other countries, and investigated associated factors using generalized linear models (GLMs). The median reimbursement lags during before (“first‐generation”) and after (“second‐generation”) NHI drug reimbursement scheme in Taiwan were 378 and 458 days, respectively. The “first‐generation” lag was shorter only than that in South Korea, whereas the “second‐generation” lag only exceeded those of the United Kingdom and Japan. In GLM models, higher drug expenditure and the introduction of the “second‐generation” NHI were two statistically significant parameters associated with reimbursement lag among antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. For other drug classes, the reimbursement price proposed by pharmaceutical companies and use of price‐volume agreements were two statistically significant parameters associated with longer reimbursement lags. The current reimbursement lag in Taiwan is longer than 1 year, but only longer than those of the United Kingdom and Japan. The determinants differ between drug categories. A specific review process for antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs may expedite reimbursement. There is a clear need for systematic data collection and analysis to ascertain factors associated with reimbursement lag and thereby inform future policy making.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.

Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.

Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.

Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

New model for prioritised adoption and use of hospital medicine in Denmark since 2017: Challenges and perspectives

Technological innovation creates new treatment opportunities, while also putting healthcare budgets under strain. To deal with the rising costs of hospital medicines, the regional governments in Denmark have developed a new model for prioritising the adoption and use of hospital medicine. Marking a shift from previous policies, the new model formalises the evaluation of clinical benefit, adds an assessment of treatment costs and ensures a relatively high degree of direct stakeholder involvement. In international comparison, the new model is ambitious in terms of stakeholder involvement and adherence with principles advocated to ensure procedural justice and fair decision-making processes. However, these procedural innovations have also created new challenges. Notably, the newly formed assessment body, the Danish Medicines Council, is faced with a very high caseload and limited options to prioritise the use of its analytical resources.

Addressing Health System Values in Health Technology Assessment: The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly used around the globe to inform resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, the importance of using explicit and transparent criteria for coverage decision making in line with health system values has been acknowledged. However, the values of a health system are often not explicitly taken into account in the HTA process. This situation influences the allocation of scarce resources and could lead to a discord between the HTA outcome and the values of the health system. We describe how evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) can help to improve this situation. EDPs are integrating two theoretical frameworks; multi-criteria decision-analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Through the use of EDPs, HTA agencies can ensure that health system values are more explicitly and consistently taken into account in the HTA process, enhancing the legitimacy of coverage decisions.

Timely, consistent, transparent assessment of market access evidence: implementing tools based on the HTA Core Model® in a pharmaceutical company

Objectives

Evidence requirements and assessment methods access differ between health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. The HTA Core Model^® provides a standardized approach to HTA, targeting evidence sharing and collaboration between participating HTA bodies. It is fit for purpose from an industry perspective and was used by pharmaceutical company Roche to develop a framework for internal assessment of evidence required for market access and coverage/reimbursement (“access evidence”).

Methods

Tools were developed to systematically scope, assess, plan, and summarize access evidence generation. The tools were based mainly on the first four HTA Core Model^® domains and rolled-out in selected development teams in 2017. Five months after full implementation, the impact of tools was assessed in an internal survey.

Results

Systematic access evidence generation started with the Access Evidence Questionnaire, to scope evidence requirements and identify evidence gaps. Findings were summarized in the Access Evidence Metric, which assessed the alignment of available/planned evidence against HTA bodies’ requirements and developed scope mitigation strategies. The Access Evidence Plan was then used to plan and document (additional) evidence generation. Once generated, evidence was summarized in the Access Evidence Dossier. A survey of twenty-seven Roche employees involved in evidence generation showed that the tools made discussions around access strategies and evidence more efficient and transparent.

Conclusions

The HTA Core Model^® provided a useful framework around which to optimize internal evidence generation and assessment. The benefits of using a standardized HTA approach in industry mirror those expected from implementing the HTA Core Model® in HTA agencies.

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

BACKGROUND

Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit).

RESULTS

Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.

Designing an interactive model of factors affecting the health technology assessment (HTA) in Iran

Purpose

According to the great importance of community health as well as the ever-increasing development of health technologies, the importance of designing an interactive model of factors affecting health technology assessment (HTA) can be highlighted. The purpose of designing and implementing the framework of health information system assessment is to ensure that the required accurate data which are necessary to measure the main health indicators are available. The purpose of this paper is to design an interactive model of factors affecting HTA.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a cross-sectional, descriptive-analytic study conducted in the Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education in the second half of 2017. A sample of 60 experts and professionals working in the field of health technologies are selected using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Two researcher-made questionnaires are used to collect the required data. The collected data are analyzed using decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and MATLAB R2013a.

Findings

The results showed that “Legal dimension,” “safety,” “Effectiveness” and “Social dimension” were the affecting factors and net causes, and “Current application,” “Knowledge of technology,” “Ethical dimension,” “Costs” and “Organizational dimension” were the affected factors and net effects in the interactive model. Furthermore, “Legal dimension” with the coordinates C: [1.88, 1.27] and “Ethical dimension” with the coordinates C: [1.75, −75] were known as the most affecting and most affected factors in the interactive model, respectively.

Originality/value

The DEMATEL model is an appropriate tool for managers and policy makers to structure and prioritize factors influencing the HTA. Policy makers and decision makers can use this model for identifying relationships among factors and prioritize them. Because health policy makers and managers have a major role in formulating the regulations and guidelines related to the HTA, they should pay more attention to the legal considerations in their decisions and use the management tools to move the available resources toward implementing and enforcing rules and guidelines related to the HTA.