This editorial introduces the special issue dedicated to commemorating the life and scholarly achievements of Professor Joan Rovira Forns, a distinguished health economist whose pioneering work continues to influence global health policy and research. We discuss why Professor Rovira was a prominent figure in the field and summarise some of his key contributions. Next, we highlight the collection of papers featured in this issue, explaining how they connect to his work and contribute to his lasting legacy by celebrating his interdisciplinary approach and dedication to societal impact.

Therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs, Spanish acronym) are a crucial tool for informing funding and pricing decisions for drugs in the Spanish healthcare system. In 2020, for the first time the inclusion of economic evaluations (EEs) was explicitly set as a primary objective in a new Action Plan aimed at consolidating IPTs. This paper seeks to examine the uptake of EE into IPTs and to compare the methods and techniques employed in the EEs conducted during the two-year pilot phase following the reform, i.e., from June 2021 to July 2023. During this period, a total of 181 IPTs were published, with 19 (10.5%) incorporating an EE section. However, out of these 19 identified IPTs, six did not actually conduct a de novo EE, and four only performed a drug cost minimisation analysis. Six IPTs conducted EE analyses following international methodological standards. Based on this review, we observe that the percentage of IPTs incorporating EEs had remained low and exhibited significant heterogeneity. The experience of these two years must be translated into lessons that can serve to reinforce the evaluation of the efficiency of medicines in Spain in the coming years.

Although the criteria that support reimbursement decisions for medicines are often set by legislation, as is the case in Spain, in many cases neither the definition nor the measurement methods for these criteria are provided. Our goal was to elicit the views of a large sample of Spanish technical specialists on how to evaluate each one of the criteria that inform pricing and reimbursement decisions in Spain. Professionals from various stakeholder groups involved in health economics, health technology assessment, and industry participated in a survey. Participants recommended that reimbursement decisions should take specific account of unmet medical need and rare diseases. Health benefit should be measured using quality-adjusted life-years. There should be an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold, and this threshold should take account of population groups and special situations.

While a substantial amount of evidence exists on factors associated with positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes, the evidence on the same regarding rejections is scarce. Using a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in seven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, we empirically examine the factors associated with HTA rejections and study the magnitude of inter-agency differences in technology appraisals. Data were extracted from HTA reports between 2009 and 2020. The primary outcome was the probability of rejection, which was examined with respect to several regulatory, disease-related, evidence (clinical and economic) and unaddressed uncertainty variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. Out of N = 1,405 HTA assessments, the rejection rate was 12.9% (n = 181). Significant predictors of HTA rejection were submissions for drugs with cancer or orphan indications (but not both), low quality of evidence and the presence of uncertainties surrounding clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, and economic model utility inputs. Systematic differences between agencies in their propensity for rejecting the same drugs were revealed, particularly in relation to cancer and rare diseases. Despite the low rejection rate, our findings suggest that it is critical to improve quality of evidence, focus on risk mitigation strategies as a means of reducing the impact of uncertainties and share HTA practices across borders to increase consistency in decision-making.

A substantial share of the global population continues to face barriers to accessing essential medicines. While the pharmaceutical industry’s business model has successfully facilitated the development of innovative medications, efforts to promote universal access to medicines (UAM) remain ineffective. This paper critically assesses the existing barriers to global access to medicines, including the role of unsuitable governance, the protection of intellectual property rights, and other market barriers such as shortages, quality shortcomings, and high prices. Furthermore, we explore a number of promising potential strategies that can help towards achieving the UAM. Specifically, we evaluate the evidence from various initiatives, including alternative models of innovation, manufacturing, procurement, intellectual property management, and structural/organisational operations. We argue that the effective realisation of UAM requires a robust framework to implement these initiatives. This framework must strike a delicate balance between addressing public health needs, incentivising research and development, and ensuring affordability. Achieving such a balance encompasses a careful oversight and collaboration between national and international regulatory bodies.

We examine the impact of decentralisation on COVID-19 mortality and various health outcomes. Specifically, we investigate whether decentralised health systems, which facilitated greater regional participation and information sharing, were more effective in saving lives. Our analysis makes three contributions. First, we draw on evidence from several European countries to assess whether the decentralisation of health systems influenced COVID-19 mortality rates. Second, we explore the regional disparities in one of the most decentralised health systems, Spain, to untangle some of the determinants shaping health outcomes. Third, we estimate the regional loss of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) due to COVID-19 mortality, broken down by the wave of the pandemic. Our findings suggest that coordinated decentralisation played a critical role in saving lives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

We present a methodology for a new composite, quantitative “mash-up” index of health system sustainability and resilience, drawing on a qualitative framework developed to assess these dimensions of the health system. The paper summarises quantifiable measures of sustainability and resilience, with sustainability defined through 7 domains and 50 indicator variables, while health system resilience is based on 6 domains and 23 variables. Each domain is captured by a separate index. A composite index is constructed through aggregation across the two dimensions, and their associated domains and indicators. All indices are aggregated through estimation of a geometric means, and are bound between 0 and 100. We pilot across 5 countries over 23 years, with the ultimate aim of identifying health policy strategies for improving national health system capacities and performances; as well as facilitating policy responses to address problematic issues of sustainability and resilience. Face validity suggests that the index captures the non-resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot study reveals considerable differences at both the dimension and domain levels within and between the examined countries, while suggesting scope for improvement in both dimensions across all countries. The index thus provides an indicative approach for temporal and spatial yardstick comparison.