Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Cited by 23
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Goodman, Clifford 2013. HTA AND INNOVATION OF VALUE: GETTING TO KNOW YOU. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 29, Issue. 04, p. 351.


    Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo McGrath, Clare and Herings, Ron 2011. A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness. Health Policy, Vol. 100, Issue. 1, p. 18.


    Sansom, Lloyd 2010. Assessing the Value of Medicines. Pharmaceutical Medicine, Vol. 24, Issue. 2, p. 89.


    Longson, Carole 2014. HTAI POLICY FORUM: KEEPING HTA ON TRACK. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 03, p. 251.


    Kanis, John A. and Hiligsmann, Mickaël 2014. The application of health technology assessment in osteoporosis. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol. 28, Issue. 6, p. 895.


    Husereau, Don Henshall, Chris and Jivraj, Jamil 2014. ADAPTIVE APPROACHES TO LICENSING, HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, AND INTRODUCTION OF DRUGS AND DEVICES. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 03, p. 241.


    Carbonneil, Cédric Quentin, Fabienne and Lee-Robin, Sun Hae 2009. A common policy framework for evidence generation on promising health technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 25, Issue. S2, p. 56.


    Bührlen, Bernhard 2010. Innovation im Gesundheitswesen: Die Rolle von HTA bei der Einführung neuer Technologien. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, Vol. 104, Issue. 10, p. 703.


    Shah, Sara Mehmood Birchall Barron, Anthony Klinger, Corinna and Wright, John S.F. 2014. A regulatory governance perspective on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Sweden. Health Policy, Vol. 116, Issue. 1, p. 27.


    Turner, Sheila Adams, Neil Cook, Andrew Price, Alison and Milne, Ruairidh 2010. Potential benefits of using a toolkit developed to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports: a case study considering positron emission tomography (PET) and Hodgkin's disease. Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 8, Issue. 1,


    Hiligsmann, Mickael Kanis, John A. Compston, Juliet Cooper, Cyrus Flamion, Bruno Bergmann, Pierre Body, Jean-Jacques Boonen, Steven Bruyere, Olivier Devogelaer, Jean-Pierre Goemaere, Stefan Kaufman, Jean-Marc Rozenberg, Serge and Reginster, Jean-Yves 2013. Health Technology Assessment in Osteoporosis. Calcified Tissue International, Vol. 93, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Frønsdal, Katrine B. Facey, Karen Klemp, Marianne Norderhaug, Inger Natvig Mørland, Berit and Røttingen, John-Arne 2010. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 26, Issue. 03, p. 309.


    Barron, Anthony J.G. Klinger, Corinna Shah, Sara Mehmood Birchall and Wright, John S.F. 2015. A regulatory governance perspective on health technology assessment (HTA) in France: The contextual mediation of common functional pressures. Health Policy, Vol. 119, Issue. 2, p. 137.


    Kolasa, Katarzyna and Wasiak, Radek 2012. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN POLAND AND SCOTLAND: COMPARISON OF PROCESS AND DECISIONS. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 28, Issue. 01, p. 70.


    Cuche, Matthieu Beckerman, Rachel Chowdhury, Cyrus A. and van Weelden, Marije A. 2014. EARLY DIALOGUE WITH HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BODIES: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 06, p. 571.


    Kleijnen, Sarah Toenders, Wil de Groot, Folkert Huic, Mirjana George, Elisabeth Wieseler, Beate Pavlovic, Mira Bucsics, Anna Siviero, Paolo D. van der Graaff, Martin Rdzany, Rafał Kristensen, Finn Børlum and Goettsch, Wim 2015. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful?. Health Policy, Vol. 119, Issue. 5, p. 569.


    Merlin, Tracy Tamblyn, David and Ellery, Benjamin 2014. WHAT’S IN A NAME? DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRODUCT TYPES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF AGENCIES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (INAHTA). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 04, p. 430.


    Oyebode, Oyinlola Garrett, Zoe George, Elizabeth Cangini, Agnese Muscolo, Luisa Anna Adele Warren, Simone Nemeth, Bertalan Földesi, Csenge Heislerová, Marcela and Gajdošová, Eva 2015. EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS ACROSS EUROPE. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 31, Issue. 1-2, p. 59.


    Tony, Michèle Wagner, Monika Khoury, Hanane Rindress, Donna Papastavros, Tina Oh, Paul and Goetghebeur, Mireille M 2011. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 11, Issue. 1,


    Kolasa, Katarzyna Schubert, Sebastian Manca, Andrea and Hermanowski, Tadeusz 2011. A review of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations for drug therapies issued between 2007 and 2009 and their impact on policymaking processes in Poland. Health Policy, Vol. 102, Issue. 2-3, p. 145.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 24, Issue 4
  • October 2008, pp. 511-517

Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making

  • John Hutton (a1), Paul Trueman (a1) and Karen Facey (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080677
  • Published online: 01 October 2008
Abstract

As more countries use HTA to inform decisions on the reimbursement of health technologies, harmonization of evidence requirements between jurisdictions has been proposed, mainly on the grounds of improved efficiency. Harmonization has the potential to avoid duplication of effort for both manufacturers and HTA bodies involved in preparing and reviewing HTA submissions for innovative technologies. However, it also carries risks of loss of local control over decisions, the application of general data standards which are not universally accepted and slowing the rate of development of innovation in the analytical disciplines supporting HTA. This study reviews the issues associated with harmonization taking into account the perspectives of the multiple stakeholders. This study draws on experiences from recent initiatives intended to promote the harmonization of HTA and experience from related fields, particularly regulatory approval of new medical technologies.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

      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.

      Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making
      Your Kindle email address
      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 Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making
      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 Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

4.D Banta , W Oortwijn . Introduction: Health technology assessment and the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:299302.

6.D Banta . The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121132.

8.FP Cappuccio , P Oakeshott , P Strazzullo , SM Kerry . Application of Framingham risk estimates to ethnic minorities in United Kingdom and implications for primary prevention of heart disease in general practice: Cross sectional population based study. BMJ. 2002;325:12711274.

10.AJ Culyer , J Lomas . Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision-making in health care: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357371.

11.AS Detsky . Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: A draft for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;3:354361.

12.MF Drummond , D Dubois , L Garattini , Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health. 1999;2:323332.

14.W Greiner , T Weijnen , M Nieuwenhuizen , A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:222231.

15.R Grieve , J Hutton , C Green . Selecting methods for the prediction of future events in cost-effectiveness models: A decision-framework and example from the cardiovascular field. Health Policy. 2003;64:311324.

17.B Haynes . Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ. 1999;319:652653.

19.J Hjelmgren , F Berggren , F Andersson . Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4:225250.

25.Y Juillet . Internationalization of regulatory requirements. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2003;17:2125.

26.D McDaid . Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: A European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63:205213.

27.D Menon , LA Topfer . Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896902.

30.FW Rockfold . Industry perspectives on ICH guidelines. Stat Med. 2002;21:29492957.

32.F Sassi . The European way to health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;16:282290.

33.RS Taylor , MF Drummond . Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs. BMJ. 2004;329:972975.

34.A Watt , A Cameron , L Sturm , Rapid versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133139.

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: