Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA: GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES

  • Andrés Pichon-Riviere (a1), Natalie C. Soto (a2), Federico Ariel Augustovski (a1), Sebastián García Martí (a1) and Laura Sampietro-Colom (a3)...

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to identify good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) that are the most relevant and of highest priority for application in Latin America and to identify potential barriers to their implementation in the region.

Methods:

HTA good practice principles proposed at the international level were identified and then explored during a deliberative process in a forum of assessors, funders, and product manufacturers.

Results:

Forty-two representatives from ten Latin American countries participated. Good practice principles proposed at the international level were considered valid and potentially relevant to Latin America. Five principles were identified as priority and with the greatest potential to be strengthened at this time: transparency in the production of HTA, involvement of relevant stakeholders in the HTA process, mechanisms to appeal decisions, clear priority-setting processes in HTA, and a clear link between HTA and decision making. The main challenge identified was to find a balance between the application of these principles and the available resources in a way that would not detract from the production of reports and adaptation to the needs of decision makers.

Conclusions:

The main recommendation was to progress gradually in strengthening HTA and its link to decision making by developing appropriate processes for each country, without trying to impose, in the short-term, standards taken from examples at the international level without adequate adaptation of these to local contexts.

  • 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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA: GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
      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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA: GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
      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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA: GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.

Footnotes

Hide All

To the event participants: Anmol Mullins (Alcon), Mariana Naranjo Muedano (AMGEN), Sean Nagle (Novartis), Adrian Griffin (Johnson & Johnson), Alarico Rodríguez (Fondo Nacional de Recursos - Uruguay), Albin Chaves Matamoros (Caja costarricense del Seguro Social - Costa Rica), Alexandre Lemgruber (OPS), Alicia Granados (Genzyme), Ana Eduviges Sancho Jiménez (Ministerio de Salud - Costa Rica), Ana Pérez Galán (Ministerio de Salud - Uruguay), Antoine Wolniewicz (Genzyme), Bernardo Tinajero (Novartis), Andrew Bruce (AMGEN), Carlo Crisostomo (Johnson & Johnson), Chris Henshall (HTAi), Clarice Alegre Petramale (CONITEC - Brasil), Diego Guarín (Merck), Elsa Koutsavakis. (Pfizer), Giovanni Francisco Guevara Vásquez: (Ministerio de Salud - El Salvador), Guillermo Sánchez Vanegas (IETS-Colombia), Homero Monsanto (Merck), Jens Grueger (Roche), Jocelyn Ramírez (Eli Lilly), Joice Valentim (Roche), José Luis Estrada Aguilar (IMSS - México), Joseph Cook (Pfizer), Lizbeth Acuña (Cuenta de Alto Costo - Colombia), Luis Gamero (Mnisterio de Salud - Perú), Manny Papadimitropoulos (Eli Lilly), María Luciana Aramijos Acurio (Ministerio de Salud - ECUADOR), Mariana Pineda (CENETEC - México), Marianela Castillo Riquelme (Ministerio de Salud - Chile), Mauricio Duarte Ruano (Caja costarricense del Seguro Social - Costa Rica), Rafael Zamora (PAMI - Argentina), Rubén Agustín Nieto (UCEETS - Argentina), Sean Tunis (HTAi), Sir Andrew Dillon (NICE-Reino Unido), Stefan Weber (Novartis International - Alcon), Virginia Baffigo Torre de Pinillos (ESSALUD - Perú). We also thank Tara Schuller for her work in translating the manuscript from Spanish to English. Financial support: The organization of and attendance at the Forum was financed by Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). The preparation of this study was undertaken by the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) with funding support from HTAi. Declaration: In any reproduction of this article, there should not be any suggestion that PAHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. From “Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: principios de buenas practices,” by Andrés Pichon-Riviere, Natalie Soto, Federico Augustovski, Sebastián García Martí, and Laura Sampietro-Colom, copyright 2017 PAHO, available at http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/34364. Translated with the permission of the Pan American Health Organization. (Non-official English translation from the original Spanish manuscript. In case of discrepancy, the original version [Spanish] shall prevail.)

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1.World Health Organization (WHO). The world health report. Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
2.Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Resolution - CSP28.R9. Health technology assessment and incorporation into health systems 2012. http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3684/CSP28.R9-e.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed May 2, 2018).
3.Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. WHA67.23 - Health Intervention and Technology Assessment in Support of Universal Health Coverage. WHA Resolution. 2014. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf?ua=1.
4.Wilsdon, T, Serota, A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of health technology assessment. London: Charles River Associates; 2011. http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/hta_final_comparison_report_13_may_2011_stc1.pdf (accessed May 2, 2018).
5.Augustovski, F, Alcaraz, A, Caporale, J, Garcia Marti, S, Pichon Riviere, A. Institutionalizing health technology assessment for priority setting and health policy in Latin America: From regional endeavors to national experiences. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:9-12. doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.963560.
6.Daniels, N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321:1300-1301.
7.Daniels, N. Justice, health, and healthcare. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1:2-16. doi:10.1162/152651601300168834.
8.Siebert, M, Clauss, LC, Carlisle, M, et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:733-740. doi:doi:null.
9.EFPIA, editor. Position paper: The use of health technology assessments (HTA) to evaluate medicines - Key principles. Brussels: EFPIA; 2005.
10.Emanuel, EJ, Fuchs, VR, Garber, AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:1323-1325. doi:10.1001/jama.298.11.1323.
11.Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258; discussion 362-368. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080343.
12.Sorenson, C, Drummond, M, Borlum, F, Busse, R. How can the impact of health technology assessments be enhanced? Copenhagen, Dinamarca: World Health Organization; 2008.
13.HLPF. High Level Pharmaceutical Forum - 2005–2008 - Final Report: HLPF; 2008. http://www.anm.ro/_/FinalConclusionsandRecommendationsoftheHighLevelPharmaceuticalForum.pdf.
14.World Health Organization (WHO). Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage 2014. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112671/1/9789241507158_eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed May 2, 2018).
15.Sampietro-Colom, L. Consider context and stakeholders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:166-167. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000153.
16.Henshall, C. Describe decision-making systems, assess health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:168. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000177.
17.Goodman, C. Toward international good practices in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:169-170. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000189.
18.Banta, HD. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362-365.
19.Hailey, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:365-366.
20.Neuhauser, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:366-367.
21.HTAi - Health Technology Assessment International: HTAi; 2015 [Septiembre 2016]. http://www.htai.org/ (accessed May 2, 2018).
22.Office of Health Economics (OHE), Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). HTA and Decision Making in Asia: How can the available resources be used most effectively to deliver high quality HTA that can be used by health system decision makers? HTA and decision making in Asia: Asia Policy Forum Style Meeting; Seoul, South Korea; 2013.
23.Chatham House Rule Londres, Reino Unido: Chatham House - The Royal Institute of International Affairs; 2016 [Septiembre 2016]. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule (accessed May 2, 2018).
24.World Health Organization (WHO). Using Health Technology Assessment for Universal Health Coverage and Reimbursement Systems. Geneva: WHO; 2015. http://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/HTA_November_meeting_report_Final.pdf?ua=1 (accessed May 2, 2018).
25.Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jonsson, B, et al. Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71-78. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990833.
26.Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, Rubinstein, A, et al. Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: Are key principles relevant for Latin America? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:421-427. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001042.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed