Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T05:01:12.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An International Review of Health Technology Assessment Approaches to Prescription Drugs and Their Ethical Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Leah Z. Rand  and
Aaron S. Kesselheim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many countries, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations determine the economic value of new drugs and make recommendations regarding appropriate pricing and coverage in national health systems. In the US, recent policy proposals aimed at reducing drug costs would link drug prices to six countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. We reviewed these countries’ methods of HTA and guidance on price and coverage recommendations, analyzing methods and guidance documents for differences in (1) the methodologies HTA organizations use to conduct their evaluations and (2) considerations they use when making recommendations. We found important differences in the methods, interpretations of HTA findings, and condition-specific carve-outs that HTA organizations use to conduct evaluations and make recommendations. These variations have ethical implications because they influence the recommendations of HTA organizations, which affect access to the drug through national insurance and price negotiations with manufacturers. The differences in HTA approaches result from the distinct political, social, and cultural contexts of each organization and its value judgments. New cost-containment policies in the US should consider the ethical implications of the HTA reviews that they are considering relying on to negotiate drug prices and what values should be included in US pricing policy.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue 3: A Bold Agenda for the Next Steps in Health Reform , Fall 2020 , pp. 583 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blumenthal, D., Seervai, S., and Bishop, S., “Three Essentials for Negotiating Lower Drug Prices,” To the Point, August 22, 2018, available at <https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/three-essentials-negotiating-lower-drug-prices> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Mathes, T., Jacobs, E., Morfeld, J. C., and Pieper, D., “Methods of International Health Technology Assessment Agencies for Economic Evaluations — A Comparative Analysis,” BMC Health Services Research 13 (2013):.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanicolas, I., Woskie, L. R., and Jha, A. K., “Health Care Spending in the United States and Other High-Income Countries,” JAMA 319, no. 10 (2018): 1024–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare Program; International Pricing Index Model for Medicare Part B Drugs § 83 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ed., GPO 2018); H.R.3 - Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, House of Representatives. H.R. 3, 116th Congress. (2019).Google Scholar
Id. H.R.3.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Kieslich, K., Bump, J. B., Norheim, O. F., Tantivess, S., and Littlejohns, P., “Accounting for Technical, Ethical, and Political Factors in Priority Setting,” Accounting for Technical, Ethical, and Political Factors in Priority Setting, 2, no. 1 (2016): 51–60.Google Scholar
“Drugs for Rare Diseases: A Review of National and International Health Technology Assessment Agencies and Public Payers’ Decision-Making Processes,” in Environmental Scan (Ottawa, 2018).Google Scholar
Clark, S. and Weale, A., “Social Values in Health Priority Setting: A Conceptual Framework,” Social Values in Health Priority Setting: A Conceptual Framework, 26, no. 3 (2012): 293–316.Google Scholar
Department of Health, Australian Government, Procedure Guidance for Listing Medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 2019.Google Scholar
Brandt, J., Shearer, B., and Morgan, S. G., “Prescription Drug Coverage in Canada: A Review of the Economic, Policy and Political Considerations for Universal Pharmacare,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice 11 (2018): 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haute Autorité de Santé, Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation, 2012.Google Scholar
IQWiG, General Methods, 2017.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, M., Komoto, S., Shiroiwa, T., and Fukuda, T., “Formal Implementation of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Japan: A Unique Health Technology Assessment System,” Formal Implementation of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Japan: A Unique Health Technology Assessment System, 23, no. 1 (2020): 43–51.Google Scholar
NICE, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, 2013.Google Scholar
Gopalan, A., “CVS Announcement of Cost-Effective Benchmarks Puts ICER in the Spotlight,” Stat News, August 22, 2016; ICER, “The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to Collaborate With the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Pharmacy Benefits Management Services Office,” news release, June, 27 2017.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2016.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. G., Vogler, S., and Wagner, A. K., “Payers’ Experiences with Confidential Pharmaceutical Price Discounts: A Survey of Public and Statutory Health Systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia,” Payers’ Experiences with Confidential Pharmaceutical Price Discounts: A Survey of Public and Statutory Health Systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia, 121, no. 4 (2017): 354–362.Google Scholar
See IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
CADTH-pCODR, pCODR Procedures, 2019; see IQWiG, supra note 13; NICE, Guide to the Processes of Technology Appraisal, 2018; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17; Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., Takura, T., and Moriwaki, K., “Development of an Official Guideline for the Economic Evaluation of Drugs/Medical Devices in Japan,” Value Health 20, no. 3 (2017): 372–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CADTH, 2017, Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada, Ottawa; see Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; ICER, 2020, 2020-2023 Value Assessment Framework; see IQWiG, supra note 13; see NICE, supra note 15; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17; Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., and Takura, T., 2017; “New Decision-Making Processes for the Pricing of Health Technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 Pilot Phase for the Introduction of Economic Evaluations,” Health Policy 121 no. 8 (2017): 836–841, doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Currency conversion on January 15, 2020 and rounded to nearest 1,000.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
CADTH, Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada (Appendix—Worked Example), in CADTH Methods and Guidelines, 2017.Google Scholar
Harris, A. H., Hill, S. R., Chin, G., Li, J. J., and Walkom, E., “The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004,” The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004, 28, no. 5 (2008): 713–722; Lybrand, S. and Wonder, M., “Analysis of PBAC submissions and outcomes for medicines (2010-2018),” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 36, no. 3 (2020): 224-231; Wang, S., Gum, D., and Merlin, T., “Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed?” Value Health 21, no. 8 (2018): 938-943.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See CADTH supra note 25; ICER supra, note 21; IQWiG, supra note 13; Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17; Shirowa et al., supra note 21.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12.Google Scholar
See CADTH, supra note 29; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Hasegawa, supra note 14.Google Scholar
ICER, Adapted Value Assessment Methods for High-Impact “Single and Short-Term Therapies” (SSTs), 2019.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
HAS, “Methods for Health Economic Evaluation,” Haute Autorité de Santé, 2015, available at <https://has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2035665/en/methods-for-health-economic-evaluation> (last visited Feb. 10, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+10,+2020).>Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, “PBAC Outcomes,” Australian Government, Department of Health, 2020, accessed 10 February.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Hasegawa, supra note 14.Google Scholar
See Shirowa et al., supra note 21.Google Scholar
HAS, “Médicaments: une évaluation rigoureuse et scientifique par la HAS,” Haute Autorité de Santé, 2018, available at <https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/pprd_2974176/en/medicaments-une-evaluation-rigoureuse-et-scientifique-par-la-has> (last visited Nov. 21, 2019).+(last+visited+Nov.+21,+2019).>Google Scholar
CADTH, Recommendation Framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Programs: Guidance for CADTH's Drug Expert Committees, 2016; see NICE, supra note 15; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, “Listings on the PBS for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.,” Australian Government, Department of Health, Last Modified November 14, 2019, available at <http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/publication/factsheets/shared/pbs-listings-for-aboriginal-and-torresstrait-islander-people> (last visited Nov. 18, 2019).+(last+visited+Nov.+18,+2019).>Google Scholar
NICE, 2008, Social Value Judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance.Google Scholar
Ogura, H., Komoto, S., Shiroiwa, T., and Fukuda, T., “Exploring the Application of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation in the Japanese National Health Insurance System,” Exploring the Application of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation in the Japanese National Health Insurance System, 35, no. 6 (2019): 1–9.Google Scholar
See Hasegawa et al., supra note 14; ICER. Modifications to the ICER Value Assessment Framework for Treatments for Ultra‐ Rare Diseases, 2017; NICE, Interim Process and Methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme Updated to reflect 2017 changes, 2017.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.Google Scholar
The Department of Health, Australian Government, Procedure Guidance for Medicines Funded through the Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP), 2018.Google Scholar
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Justification to the Resolution of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) on an Amendment of the Pharmaceuticals Directive (AM-RL): Annex XII – Resolutions on the Benefit Assessment of Medicinal Products with New Active Ingredients According to Section 35a SGB V – Asfotase Alfa. 2016.Google Scholar
See Shirowa et al., supra note 21.Google Scholar
NICE, PMG9 Addendum – Final Amendments to the NICE Technology Appraisal Methods Guide to Support the New Cancer Drugs Fund Arrangements, 2018.Google Scholar
CADTH pCODR, pCODR Expert Review Committee Deliberative Framework, 2016; CADTH, Procedure and Submission Guidelines for the CADTH Common Drug Review, 2019.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Inquiry into the Availability of New, Innovative and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia, Submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, 2015.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Torbica, A., Fornaro, G., Tarricone, R., and Drummond, M. F., “Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis,” Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis, 23, no. 1 (2020): 17–24.Google Scholar
See CADTH, supra note 21; Haute Autorité de Santé, Assessment of Ethical Aspects, 2013; NICE supra note 48.Google Scholar
See CADTH, supra note 21; Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, supra note 47.Google Scholar
Oremus, M., Tarride, J. E., Clayton, N., Canadian Willingness-to-Pay Study, G., and Raina, P., “Health Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease: Differences Based on Calculation with American and Canadian Preference Weights,” Health Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease: Differences Based on Calculation with American and Canadian Preference Weights, 17, no. 1 (2014): 77–83.Google Scholar
AHRQ, U.S. Valuation of the EuroQol EQ-5 Health States: Research Initiative in Clinical Economics, 2012.Google Scholar
Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., Devlin, N., Smith, P. C., and Sculpher, M., “Methods for the Estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Cost-Effectiveness Threshold,” Methods for the Estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Cost-Effectiveness Threshold, 19, no. 14 (2015): 1–503, v-vi.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 58.Google Scholar
Sarpatwari, A. and Kesselheim, A. S., “Reforming the Orphan Drug Act for the 21st Century,” Reforming the Orphan Drug Act for the 21st Century, 381, no. 2 (2019): 106–108.Google Scholar
Lomas, J. R. S., “Incorporating Affordability Concerns Within Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment,” Incorporating Affordability Concerns Within Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment, 22, no. 8 (2019): 898–905.Google Scholar
CADTH, Drugs for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection: Recommendations Report, in CADTH Therapeutic Review (2016).Google Scholar
ICER, The Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Value of Simeprevir and Sofosbuvir in the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection (2014)Google Scholar
Barua, S., Greenwald, R., Grebely, J., Dore, G. J., Swan, T., and Taylor, L. E., “Restrictions for Medicaid Reimbursement of Sofosbuvir for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection (2015): 215-223; Marshall, A. D., Pawlotsky, J. M., Lazarus, J. V., Aghemo, A., Dore, G. J., and Grebely, J., “The Removal of DAA Restrictions in Europe - One Step Closer to Eliminating HCV as a Major Public Health Threat,” Journal Hepatology 69, no. 5 (2018): 1188–1196.Google Scholar
See Sarpatwari and Kesselheim, supra note 68.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21; ICER, Modifications to the ICER Value Assessment Framework for Treatments for Ultra-Rare Diseases (2020).Google Scholar
Nayak, R. K., Avorn, J., and Kesselheim, A. S., “Public Sector Financial Support for Late Stage Discovery of New Drugs in the United States: Cohort Study,” BMJ 367 (2019): 15766–15778.Google ScholarPubMed
See NICE, supra note 15 at 5.4.1.Google Scholar
Danis, M., Ginsburg, M., and Goold, S., “Experience in the United States with Public Deliberation about Health Insurance Benefits using the Small Group Dcision Exercise, CHAT,” Experience in the United States with Public Deliberation about Health Insurance Benefits using the Small Group Dcision Exercise, CHAT, 33, no. 3 (2010): 205–214; Stahl, J. E., Tramontano, A. C., Swan, J. S., and Cohen, B. J., “Balancing Urgency, Age and Quality of Life in Organ Allocation Decisions — What Would You Do?: A Survey,” Journal of Medical Ethics 34, no. 2 (2008): 109-115.Google Scholar
ICER, “2020 Value Assessment Framework: Open Input Period.,” Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2020, available at <https://icer-review.org/material/2020-valueassessment-framework-open-input-comments/> (last visited Feb. 13, 2020; Kreis, J. and Schmidt, H., “Public Engagement in Health Technology Assessment and Coverage Decisions: A Study of Experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom,” Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 38, no. 1 (2013): 89-122.CrossRef+(last+visited+Feb.+13,+2020;+Kreis,+J.+and+Schmidt,+H.,+“Public+Engagement+in+Health+Technology+Assessment+and+Coverage+Decisions:+A+Study+of+Experiences+in+France,+Germany,+and+the+United+Kingdom,”+Journal+of+Health+Politics+Policy+and+Law+38,+no.+1+(2013):+89-122.>Google Scholar
See IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Haute Autorité de Santé, “Pricing & Reimbursement of Drugs and Policies, HT. in France,” Haute Autorité de Santé, 2014, available at <https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_1729421/en/transparency-committee> (last visited Nov 14, 2019).+(last+visited+Nov+14,+2019).>Google Scholar
PBS, “About the PBS,” The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 2020, available at <http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/about-thepbs> (last visited Jan. 27, 2020).+(last+visited+Jan.+27,+2020).>Google Scholar
See CADTH, supra note 57.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Ogura et al., supra note 49.Google Scholar
ICER, A Guide to ICER's Methods for Health Technology Assessment, 2018.Google Scholar
Hailey, D., “The History of Health Technology Assessment in Australia,” International Journal of Technology Assessment Health Care 25, Suppl. 1 (2009): 61–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See IQWiG, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12.Google Scholar
See CADTH, supra note 26.Google Scholar
See NICE, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Ogura et al., supra note 49.Google Scholar
See ICER, supra note 21.Google Scholar