Skip to main content
×
×
Home

CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?

  • Don Husereau (a1), Chris Henshall (a2), Laura Sampietro-Colom (a3) and Sarah Thomas (a4)
  • Please note a correction has been issued for this article.
Abstract

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) has to innovate to best support changing health system environments and to help provide access to valuable innovation under fiscal constraint.

Methods: Issues associated with changing HTA paradigms were identified through scoping and explored through deliberation at a meeting of industry and HTA leaders.

Results: Five broad areas of change (engagement, scientific dialogue, research prioritization, adaptive approaches, and real world data) were identified. The meeting focused on two themes derived from these: re-thinking scientific dialogue and multi-stakeholder engagement, and re-thinking value, affordability, and access. Earlier and ongoing engagement to steer the innovation process and help achieve appropriate use across the technology lifecycle was perceived as important but would be resource intensive and would require priority setting. Patients need to be involved throughout, and particularly at the early stages. Further discussion is needed on the type of body best suited to convening the dialogue required. There was agreement that HTA must continue to assess value, but views differed on the role that HTA should play in assessing affordability and on appropriate responses to challenges around affordability. Enhanced horizon scanning could play an important role in preparing for significant future investments.

Conclusions: Early and ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement and revisiting approaches to valuing innovation are required. Questions remain as to the most appropriate role for HTA bodies. Changing HTA paradigms extend HTA's traditional remit of being responsive to decision-makers demands to being more proactive and considering whole system value.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
1. OECD. Value for Money in Health Spending [Internet]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2010 [cited February 4, 2015]. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264088818-en
2. Frønsdal, KB, Facey, K, Klemp, M, et al. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:309316.
3. Henshall, C, Schuller, T; HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:353359.
4. Mossialos, E, Wenzl, M, Osborn, R, Sarnak, D, eds. International profiles of health care systems, 2015 [Internet]. The Commonwealth Fund; 2016 [cited March 14, 2016]. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2016/jan/international-profiles-2015
5. Facey, K. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of evidence production for HTA in the light of current trends in drug and device development, health system funding, regulation and HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:201206.
6. Chatham House Rule [Internet]. Chatham House. [cited March 14, 2016]. https://www.chathamhouse.org//node/44
7. Europe Decides. What can the EU do to improve access to medicines? [Internet]. 2015 [cited March 14, 2016]. http://europedecides.eu/2015/02/what-can-the-eu-do-to-improve-access-to-medicines/
8. EFPIA - Improving patient access to innovative medicines – the framework in which differentiated pricing may offer a solution [Internet]. [cited March 14, 2016]. http://www.efpia.eu/documents/102/48/Improving-patient-access-to-innovative-medicines-the-framework-in-which-differentiated-pricing-may-offer-a-solution
9. Kennedy, I. Appraising the value of innovation and other benefits [Internet]. 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Research-and-development/Kennedy-study-final-report.pdf
10. Dirksen, CD. The use of research evidence on patient preferences in health care decision-making: Issues, controversies and moving forward. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:785794.
11. Ward, JW, Mermin, JH. Simple, effective, but out of reach? Public health implications of HCV drugs. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:26782680.
12. Eichler, H-G, Pignatti, F, Flamion, B, Leufkens, H, Breckenridge, A. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: A mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:818826.
13. Husereau, D, Henshall, C, Jivrai, J. Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:241249.
14. Klemp, M, Frønsdal, KB, Facey, K. What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:7783.
15. Montilla, S, Xoxi, E, Russo, P, Cicchetti, A, Pani, L. Monitoring registries at Italian medicines agency: fostering access, guaranteeing sustainability. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:210213.
16. Facey, KM, Hansen, HP. Patient-focused HTAs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:273274.
17. Frank, L, Forsythe, L, Ellis, L, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:10331041.
18. Eichler, H-G, Bloechl-Daum, B, Abadie, E, et al. Relative efficacy of drugs: An emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:277291.
19. Lord, J, Willis, S, Eatock, J, et al. Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: The Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:v–vi, 1192.
20. Noorani, HZ, Husereau, DR, Boudreau, R, Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310315.
21. greenparkcollaborative - Alzheimer's Disease Pilot [Internet]. [cited May 9, 2014]. http://www.cmtpnet.org/resource-center/view/design-of-clinical-studies-of-pharmacologic-therapies-for-alzheimers-diseas/
22. Low, E. Potential for patients and patient-driven organizations to improve evidence for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:226227.
23. Moreira, T. Understanding the role of patient organizations in health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2015;18:33493357.
24. Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155163.
25. Husereau, D. How do we value a cure? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:551555.
26. Coyle, D, Buxton, MJ, O'Brien, BJ. Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: A framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ. 2003;12:421427.
27. 1 CRCND, 2015, Pm 7:23. VA can't afford drug for veterans suffering from hepatitis C [Internet]. [cited December 3, 2015]. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-cant-afford-drug-for-veterans-suffering-from-hepatitis-c/
28. Carlson, JJ, Sullivan, SD, Garrison, LP, Neumann, PJ, Veenstra, DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96:179190.
29. The way forward on social impact bonds [Internet]. MaRS. [cited November 30, 2015]. https://www.marsdd.com/news-and-insights/way-forward-social-impact-bonds-canadian-impact-investors-give-insights-new-report/
30. Overview - ABOUT IFFIm - International Finance Facility for Immunisation [Internet]. [cited February 14, 2015]. http://www.iffim.org/About/Overview/
31. The Health Impact Fund: A Summary Overview | Incentives for Global Health [Internet]. [cited February 14, 2015]. http://healthimpactfund.org/publications/
32. Daniels, N, Porteny, T, Urritia, J. Expanded HTA: Enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5:13.
33. Thokala, P, Duenas, A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15:11721181.
34. Diaby, V, Goeree, R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: A step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:8199.
35. Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:113.
36. Henshall, C, Schuller, T, Mardhani-Bayne, L. Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: The challenge of “disinvestment.” Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:203210.
37. Garber, AM. Cost-effectiveness and evidence evaluation as criteria for coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan-Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-284-296.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Husereau supplementary material
Supplementary Table 1

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 167
Total number of PDF views: 757 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1269 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st October 2016 - 21st August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

A correction has been issued for this article: