Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective

The role of Iran's context for the development of health technology assessment: challenges and solutions

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a comprehensive and structured evaluation that aims to analyze the potential impacts of health technologies, including medical devices, diagnostic tools, pharmaceuticals, and public health interventions. Its purpose is to provide policymakers with evidence-based information to inform decisions related to the utilization and implementation of these technologies. HTA allows for the comparison of various scenarios related to a technology across a wide range of factors. This can aid in the creation of an essential drug list and health benefits package that is tailored to the actual needs of the community within a given healthcare system. In the present paper, we review the role of Iran's context for the development of HTA, in terms of challenges and solutions.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Development of a Health Technology Assessment Quality Appraisal Checklist (HTA-QAC) for India

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop a comprehensive checklist for evaluating Health Technology Assessment (HTA) studies commissioned in India. The primary objective of this work is to capture all vital aspects of an HTA study in terms of conduct, reporting and quality.

METHODOLOGY

The development of a quality appraisal checklist included 3 steps. First, a targeted review of the literature was done to gather information on existing HTA checklists. After reviewing these checklists, an initial draft of the HTA quality appraisal checklist (HTA-QAC) for India was prepared with discussion amongst the authors. Second, the draft checklist was reviewed by the members of the Technical Appraisal Committee (TAC) and their feedback was incorporated. Subsequently, the revised checklist was presented at a virtual meeting of the TAC. Finally, a pilot phase was undertaken to apply HTA-QAC for the approved HTA study reports. Three rounds of virtual discussions were held with the researchers who were involved in the conduct of these HTA studies to resolve any discordance in opinion or develop solutions for the problems in the use of the HTA-QAC followed by a further revision of the checklist.

RESULTS

The HTA-QAC is divided into two parts: a self-reporting section to be completed by the author, and the other to be completed by the reviewer. The reviewer checklist has two sections: one to review the report and the other to review the model. The author section is in a self-reporting format, which includes details of basic study information, the rationale for the study, policy relevance, study description, study methods, reporting of model parameters, and results. The reviewer section of the checklist focuses on the quality aspect of the conducted study. The domains included in the report review include details on study methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The second part of the reviewer section of HTA-QAC constitutes a review of the model in terms of model assumptions, functionality, model inputs, calculations, uncertainty analysis, model output, and model validation.

CONCLUSION

We recommend a standardised process of quality appraisal to ensure the high quality of HTA evidence for policy use in the Indian context. The proposed HTA-QAC will help authors to ensure standardised reporting, as well as allow reviewers to assess the quality of analysis.

Assessing the potential of HTA to inform resource allocation decisions in low-income settings: The case of Malawi

Health technology assessment (HTA) offers a set of analytical tools to support health systems' decisions about resource allocation. Although there is increasing interest in these tools across the world, including in some middle-income countries, they remain rarely used in low-income countries (LICs). In general, the focus of HTA is narrow, mostly limited to assessments of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. However, the principles of HTA can be used to support a broader series of decisions regarding new health technologies. We examine the potential for this broad use of HTA in LICs, with a focus on Malawi. We develop a framework to classify the main decisions on health technologies within health systems. The framework covers decisions on identifying and prioritizing technologies for detailed assessment, deciding whether to adopt an intervention, assessing alternative investments for implementation and scale-up, and undertaking further research activities. We consider the relevance of the framework to policymakers in Malawi and we use two health technologies as examples to investigate the main barriers and enablers to the use of HTA methods. Although the scarcity of local data, expertise, and other resources could risk limiting the operationalisation of HTA in LICs, we argue that even in highly resource constrained health systems, such as in Malawi, the use of HTA to support a broad range of decisions is feasible and desirable.

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.

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.

Deliberative processes in decision making informed by health technology assessment in Latin America

Objective

The objective of Health Technology Assessment International’s 6th Latin America Policy Form, held in 2021, was to explore the implementation of deliberative processes in the framework of health technology assessment (HTA) and how agencies in the region could involve stakeholders in this process.

Methods

This paper is based on a preparatory survey, a background document, and the deliberative work of participants at the virtual Forum conducted in 2021. There were ninety-one participants in the open session and fifty-two in the closed sessions, representing twelve countries and diverse areas of the health sector.

Results

While there are mechanisms in most countries in Latin America to consider stakeholder involvement to some degree, it remains reduced or limited to a consultative role, making true participative involvement rare. There are significant barriers and structural and contextual limitations that have impeded or slowed progress toward deliberative processes. Relatively low levels of institutionalization and knowledge about HTA, as well as the lack of trust among stakeholders are important challenges. This situation has impacted health systems by diminishing the legitimacy of decisions and the very structures and processes of HTA.

Conclusion

The Forum’s broad group of participants identified barriers, facilitators, and recommendations to improve the use of deliberative processes in Latin America to foster improved fairness and reasonableness in HTA and decision making.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: pragmatic study

INTRODUCTION

The intensification of research and innovation with the creation of networks of rapid and effective molecular tests as strategies for the end of tuberculosis are essential to avoid late diagnosis and for the eradication of the disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in reference units, in scenarios with and without subsidies, and the respective cost adjustment for today.

METHODS

The analyses were performed considering as criterion of effectiveness, negative culture or clinical improvement in the sixth month of follow-up. The comparison was performed using two diagnostic strategies for the drug susceptibility test (DST), BactecTMMGITTM960 System, versus Xpert. The cost effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and dollar-corrected for American inflation (US$ 1.00 = R$ 5,29).

RESULTS

Subsidized Xpert had the lowest cost of US$ 33.48 (R$67,52) and the highest incremental average efficiency (13.57), thus being a dominated analysis. After the inflation was calculated, the mean cost was DST-MGIT=US$ 74.85 (R$ 396,73) and Xpert = US$ 37.33 (R$197,86) with subsidies.

CONCLUSIONS

The Xpert in the diagnosis of TB-DR in these reference units was cost-effective with subsidies. In the absence of a subsidy, Xpert in TB-DR is not characterized as cost effective. This factor reveals the vulnerability of countries dependent on international organizations' subsidy policies.

Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes toward more legitimate decision making. A survey among members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) showed that EDPs can also be relevant for countries that have not (yet) established such an agency. Therefore, we explored to what extent low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) applied the steps and elements stipulated in the EDP framework and their need for guidance.

METHODS

The survey among INAHTA members was slightly adapted to address LMIC context and sent to 416 experts identified through several HTA sources. The questions focused on contextual factors and the EDP steps (installation of an appraisal committee, selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, communication and appeal). Data collection took place between 21 May and 1 September 2019. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to summarize the findings.

RESULTS

We received sixty-six meaningful responses from experts in thirty-two LMIC. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development are overall not present or only present to some extent. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, as well as communication and appeal.

CONCLUSIONS

EDPs have the potential to provide steps for improving HTA processes. The results of this study can serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation of EDP application in the responding LMIC. This could support the countries in improving their processes and enhancing legitimate decision making when using HTA.

Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis

When setting priorities for health, there is broad agreement that a range of social values and ethical principles beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness matter, but exactly how health technology assessment (HTA) should account for a broader set of criteria remains an area of ongoing debate. In light of this, we welcome a recent review paper by Baltussen et al. evaluating the potential of different multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches to enable HTA agencies to incorporate a broader set of values in their appraisals. The authors describe three approaches to MCDA-qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules-laying out their relative advantages and disadvantages and providing recommendations for how they can best be implemented. While we endorse many of the authors' assessments and conclusions, including the critical role of deliberation in any MCDA approach and the undertaking of qualitative MCDA at a minimum, we take a stronger position regarding the flaws of quantitative MCDA and strongly caution against it. We find quantitative MCDA antithetical to at least two of the ways MCDA is intended to improve HTA recommendations: (i) enhancing quality and (ii) promoting transparency. Quantitative MCDA may mask the complex tradeoffs that exist within and between decision criteria and remain generally inaccessible to those who are not well-versed in its technical methods of appraisal. We advocate for a predominantly qualitative approach to MCDA appraisal centered around deliberation and supplemented with decision aids to help account for health opportunity costs.