Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

  • Michael F. Drummond (a1), J. Sanford Schwartz (a2), Bengt Jönsson (a3), Bryan R. Luce (a4), Peter J. Neumann (a5), Uwe Siebert (a6) and Sean D. Sullivan (a7)...

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) “Structure” of HTA programs; (ii) “Methods” of HTA; (iii) “Processes for Conduct” of HTA; and (iv) “Use of HTAs in Decision Making.”

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.

2. S Birch , A Gafni . Information created to evade reality (ICER): Things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11211131.

3. A Brennan , SE Chick , R Davies . A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15:12951310.

5. N Devlin , D Parkin . Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437452.

7. MF Drummond , H Weatherly . Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:112.

8. DM Eddy . Investigational treatments: How strict should we be? JAMA. 1997;278:179185.

9. DM Eddy . Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:917.

10. EJ Emanuel , VR Fuchs , AM Garber . Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:13231325.

13. AM Garber . Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:6282.

14. LP Garrison , P Neumann , P Erickson , D Marshall , CD Mullins . Using real world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR real world task force report. Value Health. 2007;10:326335.

15. B George , A Harris , A Mitchell . Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:11031109.

17. R Goeree , L Levin . Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework-an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11431156.

19. S Griffin , K Claxton , N Hawkins , MJ Sculpher . Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: Necessary and required? Value Health. 2006;9:244252.

25. J Mauskopf , MF Drummond . Publication of pharmacoeconomic data submitted to reimbursement or clinical guidelines agencies (Editorial). Value Health. 2004;7:515516.

29. PJ Neumann , SD Sullivan . Economic evaluation in the US: What is the missing link? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1163–8.

30. HZ Noorani , D Husereau , R Boudreau , B Skidmore . Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310315.

32. MD Rawlins , AJ Culyer . National Institute of Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224227.

34. DL Sackett , WM Rosenberg , JA Gray , RB Haynes , WS Richardson . Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:7172.

35. MJ Sculpher , MF Drummond . Analysis sans frontiers: Can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:10871099.

36. TA Sheldon , N Cullum , D Dawson , What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329:999.

37. U Siebert . When should decision-analytic modeling be used in economic evaluation of health care? Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:143150.

38. EP Steinberg , S Tunis , D Shapiro . Insurance coverage for experimental technologies. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14:143158.

40. SR Tunis . Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: A conversation with David Eddy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:w500w515.

41. SR Tunis , SD Pearson . Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's ‘Coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:12181230.

42. SR Tunis , DB Stryer , CM Clancy . Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:16241632.

43. GR Wilensky . Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:w572w585.

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? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 42
Total number of PDF views: 408 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1242 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.