Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 77
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Hill, Suzanne R 2012. Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians. BMC Medicine, Vol. 10, Issue. 1,


    Boriani, G. Maniadakis, N. Auricchio, A. and Vardas, P. 2010. Health economics and outcomes research: a new challenge and field of action for the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace, Vol. 12, Issue. 5, p. 601.


    Kobelt, Gisela 2010. Targeted Treatment of the Rheumatic Diseases.


    Mantovani, Lorenzo Giovanni Cortesi, Paolo Angelo and Strazzabosco, Mario 2016. Effective but costly: How to tackle difficult trade-offs in evaluating health improving technologies in liver diseases. Hepatology, Vol. 64, Issue. 4, p. 1331.


    Rasu, Rafia S. 2016. Macro and Micro Level Usage of Outcomes Research in Pharmacy Practices. Hospital Pharmacy, Vol. 51, Issue. 5, p. 351.


    Dakin, Helen and Wordsworth, Sarah 2013. COST-MINIMISATION ANALYSIS VERSUS COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, REVISITED. Health Economics, Vol. 22, Issue. 1, p. 22.


    Gibson, J. Mark and Little, Alison 2010. HTA principles need rigorous review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 26, Issue. 04, p. 428.


    Halpern, Neil A 2009. Can the costs of critical care be controlled?. Current Opinion in Critical Care, Vol. 15, Issue. 6, p. 591.


    Luce, Bryan and Cohen, Rebecca Singer 2009. Health technology assessment in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 25, Issue. S1, p. 33.


    Annemans, Lieven Cleemput, Irina Simoens, Steven Arickx, Francis Hulstaert, Frank and Bogaert, Marc 2010. The increasing role of health economic evaluations in drug development. Drug Development Research, Vol. 71, Issue. 8, p. 457.


    Dukhovny, D. and Zupancic, J. A. F. 2011. Economic Evaluation With Clinical Trials in Neonatology. NeoReviews, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. e69.


    Annemans, Lieven 2012. Comparative effectiveness: beyond the buzz. Journal of Medical Economics, Vol. 15, Issue. 6, p. 1036.


    Helfand, Mark 2010. AHRQ Series Editorial: Public involvement improves methods development in comparative effectiveness reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 63, Issue. 5, p. 471.


    Drummond, Michael Neumann, Peter Jönsson, Bengt Luce, Bryan Schwartz, J. Sanford Siebert, Uwe and Sullivan, Sean D. 2012. CAN WE RELIABLY BENCHMARK HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATIONS?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 28, Issue. 02, p. 159.


    Kolasa, Katarzyna Kalo, Zoltan Zah, Vladimir and Dolezal, Tomas 2012. Role of health technology assessment in the process of implementation of the EU Transparency Directive: relevant experience from Central Eastern European countries. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 12, Issue. 3, p. 283.


    Mørland, Berit Ringard, Ånen and Røttingen, John-Arne 2010. Supporting tough decisions in Norway: A healthcare system approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 26, Issue. 04, p. 398.


    Schwarzer, Ruth and Siebert, Uwe 2009. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 25, Issue. 03, p. 305.


    Husereau, Don Drummond, Michael Petrou, Stavros Carswell, Chris Moher, David Greenberg, Dan Augustovski, Federico Briggs, Andrew H Mauskopf, Josephine and Loder, Elizabeth 2013. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Medicine, Vol. 11, Issue. 1,


    Hunger, Theresa Schnell-Inderst, Petra Sahakyan, Narine and Siebert, Uwe 2016. USING EXPERT OPINION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A GUIDELINE REVIEW. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 32, Issue. 03, p. 131.


    Mathew, Joseph L. 2011. KNOW ESSENTIALS: A tool for informed decisions in the absence of formal HTA systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 27, Issue. 02, p. 139.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 24, Issue 3
  • July 2008, pp. 244-258

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)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080343
  • Published online: 01 July 2008
Abstract

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.”

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.

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? *
×

Keywords: