The objective of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3 (JA3) was to develop a sustainable European model for future collaboration on HTA, by reducing duplication in HTA production and increasing patient access to health technologies. Compared to the previous JA2, several procedural changes were made aiming to increase usability, transparency, and inclusiveness of relative effectiveness assessments (REAs). This article presents and highlights these changes, explains their rationale as well as their influence on HTA production.

Feedback from REA teams and project managers was collected. At the end of JA3, all lessons learned were mapped, resulting in a set of recommendations for a future REA production process.

In JA3, forty-three EUnetHTA REAs have been produced. Efforts to increase the usability of the REAs were made by focussing on the needs of REA producers and users (HTA agencies) and by increasing stakeholder involvement. Huge steps were taken with regard to transparency, which was achieved through publication of guidances, templates, and up-to-date information on the EUnetHTA website. In an attempt to improve inclusiveness, (stakeholder) interaction and involvement as well as feedback procedures were enhanced and streamlined. The fine-tuned project management brought all aspects together and facilitated a consistent and reliable workflow.

Despite that HTA agencies have different national requirements, the procedural changes made in JA3 proved to counteract some of these challenges. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that further perceived methodological differences are being resolved to ensure a strong base for future European collaboration on REA production.

Health technology assessment (HTA) plays a central role in the coverage and reimbursement decision-making process for public health expenditure in many countries, including Thailand. However, there have been few attempts to quantitatively understand the benefits of using HTA to inform resource allocation decisions. The objective of this research was to simulate the expected net monetary benefit (NMB) from using HTA-based decision criteria compared to a first-come, first-served (FCFS) approach using data from Thailand.

A previously published simulation model was adapted to the Thai context which aimed to simulate the impact of using different decision-making criteria to adopt or reject health technologies for public reimbursement. Specifically, the simulation model provides a quantitative comparison between an HTA-based funding rule and a counterfactual (FCFS) funding rule to make decisions on which health technologies should be funded. The primary output of the model was the NMB of using HTA-based decision criteria compared to the counterfactual approach. The HTA-based decision rule in the model involved measuring incremental cost-effectiveness ratios against a cost-effectiveness threshold. The counterfactual decision rule was a FCFS (random) selection of health technologies.

The HTA-based decision rule was associated with a greater NMB compared to the counterfactual. In the investigated analyses, the NMB ranged from THB24,238 million (USD725 million) to THB759,328 million (USD22,719 million). HTA-based decisions led to fewer costs, superior health outcomes (more quality-adjusted life-years).

The results support the hypothesis that HTA can provide health and economic benefits by improving the efficiency of resource allocation decision making.

The reimbursement of medicines by the Spanish National Health System (NHS) is based on a set of criteria included in the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2015 (RDL 1/2015). The Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines and Healthcare Products (CIPM) is responsible for the final price and reimbursement (P&R) decision, including on its resolutions the criteria listed in the law by which the reimbursement of a drug is approved or denied. Nevertheless, the information behind its reasoning is not provided. The present study aims to characterize the P&R criteria of the RDL 1/2015 through criteria definitions from other countries to improve the P&R evaluation in Spain.

A multidisciplinary experts panel with relevant experience in drug evaluation and decision making at national, regional, and local level in Spain was selected for this study. A literature review to characterize the criteria listed in the RDL 1/2015 was performed based on the most relevant and recognized Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies in Europe, UK, and Canada. Eventually, a feasibility study was performed to evaluate the novel drug cefiderocol using the characterized criteria, including a reflective discussion of the results.

Consensus was reached among the multidisciplinary experts on the characterization of the criteria set by the law. The feasibility of their application to a new drug was exploratory, notwithstanding it showed the potential to improve the transparency as well as to offer a more structured rationale for the CIPM to evaluate the inclusion of new drugs in the Spanish NHS.

The aim of this study was to find ways of bridging the gap in opinions concerning health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement submission between manufacturers and payers to avoid access delays for patients of vital medicines such as oncology drugs. This was done by investigating differences and similarities of opinion among key stakeholders in Australia.

The survey comprised of nine sections: background demographics, general statements on HTA, clinical claim, extrapolations, quality of life, costs and health resource utilization, agreements, decision making, and capability/capacity. Responses to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using chi-square statistics.

There were ninety-seven respondents in total, thirty-seven from the public sector (academia/government) and sixty from the private sector (industry/consultancies). Private and public sector respondents had similar views on clinical claims. They were divided when it came to extrapolation of survival data and costs and health resource utilization. However, they generally agreed that rebates are useful, outcomes-based agreements are difficult to implement, managed entry schemes are required when data are limited, and willingness to pay is higher in cancer compared to other therapeutic areas. They also agreed that training mostly takes place through on the job training and that guideline updates were a least favored opportunity for continued training.

Private sector respondents favor methods that reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to the public sector respondents. There still exist a number of challenges for HTA in oncology and many research opportunities as a result of this study.

The 2021 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) aimed to explore the challenges and opportunities presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic for health systems and industry in the Asia region, to discuss how HTA changed during the pandemic, and what its role may be moving forward into a postpandemic era.

Discussions during the virtual 2021 APF, informed by a premeeting survey of HTA agencies and industry attendees from the region describing their experience during the pandemic, form the basis of this paper.

During the pandemic, regulatory approval for COVID-related technologies was fast-tracked with fewer evidentiary requirements, and little or no HTA being conducted before these technologies were implemented in health systems in the region. “Living HTA” incorporating real-world evidence (RWE) as it was generated became part of the HTA landscape. In comparison, non-COVID technologies experienced regulatory approval and HTA delays. A major concern of APF members was future pandemic preparedness, and to ensure that lessons are learned from COVID-19. Governments need to continue to invest in innovation and allow early regulatory approvals with the increased use of RWE. Capacity building was identified as a key investment, including capacity in HTA, modeling, as well as local production of necessary supplies and equipment. Finally, collaboration at all levels of the health system was viewed as vital.

Post-COVID, different forms of HTA must be embraced as part of the new HTA landscape in addition to increased intra- and intercountry collaboration across all sectors of the health system, including regulatory bodies.

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel (a CAR T-cell therapy), versus blinatumomab, for the treatment of pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) in the Irish healthcare setting. The value of conducting further research, to investigate the value of uncertainty associated with the decision problem, is assessed by means of expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses.

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed. A short-term decision tree partitioned patients in the tisagenlecleucel arm according to infusion status. Survival was extrapolated to 60 months; general population mortality with a standardized mortality ratio was then applied. Estimated EVPI and EVPPI were scaled up to population according to the incidence of the decision.

At list prices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was EUR 73,086 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (incremental costs EUR 156,928; incremental QALYs 2.15). The probability of cost-effectiveness, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 45,000 per QALY, was 16 percent. At this threshold, population EVPI was EUR 314,455; population EVPPI was below EUR 100,000 for each parameter category.

Tisagenlecleucel is not cost effective, versus blinatumomab, for the treatment of pediatric and young adult patients with R/R ALL in Ireland (at list prices). Further research to decrease decision (parameter) uncertainty, at the defined willingness-to-pay threshold, may not be of value. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty underpinning the analysis, which may not be captured by EVPI analysis.

Clinical practice is shifting toward an era of precision medicine. The use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in oncology has broad potential as a universal companion diagnostic for targeted therapies which may significantly improve health outcomes while using healthcare resources more efficiently. Given the nature of this technology, assessing the value of CGP presents unique challenges.

This paper draws on evidence from the academic and policy literature in oncology, as well as stakeholder interviews (health economists, payers, clinicians, and public policy officials) in countries using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) as part of health technology assessment (HTA).

The degree to which CGP is subject to a value assessment varies significantly across healthcare systems. Current HTA processes focus on evaluating diagnostic testing through co-dependent assessment of diagnostic testing and associated therapeutic interventions. Diagnostic tests with multiple associated therapeutic interventions are rapidly evolving and poorly unsuited to current HTA approaches. Moreover, HTA approaches are limited in their ability to consider broader systemic benefits of the expanded diagnostic capabilities and enhanced opportunities for clinical trial participation offered by CGP.

The assessment of the overall value of CGP is limited by the current models of HTA. This paper suggests policy proposals for value assessment and funding reforms to help broaden patient access to CGP. These include investing in genomic testing infrastructure; decoupling the assessment of the value of CGP testing to identifying predetermined therapeutic interventions; tailoring evaluation methodology; and developing approaches to collecting evidence of clinical, healthcare system and societal benefit.

The reimbursement process for innovative health technologies in Hungary lacks any formalized assessment of clinical added benefit (CAB). The aim of this research is to present the development, retrospective testing, and implementation of a local assessment framework for determining the CAB of cancer treatments at the Department of Health Technology Assessment of the National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition in Hungary.

The assessment framework was drafted after screening existing methods and a retrospective comparison of local reimbursement dossiers to that of German and French methods. The Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale of the European Society for Medical Oncology was chosen to rate the extent of CAB in oncology, as part of a conclusion complemented by the assessment of endpoint relevance and the quality of evidence. Several rounds of retrospective assessments have been conducted involving all clinical assessors, iterated with semistructured discussions to consolidate divergence between assessors. External stakeholders were consulted to provide feedback on the framework.

Retrospective assessments resulted in average more than 75 percent concordance between assessors on each element of the conclusion. Input from ten stakeholders was also incorporated; stakeholders were generally supportive, and they mostly commented on the concept, the elements of the framework, and its implementation.

The procedure is suitable for routine use in the decision-making process to describe the CAB of antineoplastic technologies in Hungary. Further extension of the framework is required to cover more disease areas for structured and comparable conclusions on CAB of innovative health technologies.

This study aimed to identify different criteria for priority setting of rare diseases to help policy makers in making evidence-informed decisions.

A scoping review was conducted to comprehensively examine the existing various methods and criteria for prioritizing orphan drugs and rare diseases. We performed searching in Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, 2000–21, and data were extracted.

From the 1,580 identified publications, eleven articles were included. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most frequent method (seven out of eleven studies) used for priority setting. The extracted criteria for priority setting of orphan products were analyzed based on six main categories as follows: health outcomes and clinical implications (six subsets which showed clinical implications), economic aspects (four subsets that indicated the economic effects of orphan drugs and rare diseases), disease and population characteristics (six subsets that included the characteristics of the rare diseases), therapeutic alternatives and uniqueness of orphan technologies (two subsets which discussed the alternatives and uniqueness of orphan technologies), evidence (three subsets which regarded the quality and availability of evidence), and other criteria (three subsets dealing with social and organizational criteria). Cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and disease severity were the most frequent criteria in the studies.

Because of the high price of orphan drugs and limitations of using HTA for reimbursement of them, it is critical to explore them by precise technical methods like multiple criteria decision making in priority setting.

To provide an update on the use of health technology assessment (HTA) in Asia and lessons for countries seeking to advance HTA.

Build upon the research by Chootipongchaivat and the World Health Organization identifying eighteen “factors conducive to the development of HTA in Asia.” These factors were used to create a balanced scorecard to assess the progress of HTA, measuring progress against each factor in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. A scoring system was used wherein: 1, No progress; 2, milestone at early stages, ad hoc HTA use; 3, progress on milestone but limited impact; 4, significant progress but limited remit; and 5, significant progress on milestone, routine HTA informs decisions. Total scores indicated progress of HTA while milestone scores provided contextual insights within countries. Literature reviews and expert interviews were used to complete scorecards.

South Korea and Thailand scored highest with seventy-three and seventy-one points, respectively, while Vietnam scored lowest at 28.5. Advanced HTA programs have independent HTA agencies with a broad remit, explicit process and methods, network of researchers, and routine use of HTA. Taiwan and Malaysia fall in a middle tier, with established HTA programs with limited remit. The final tier with China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, emerging HTA processes.

Universal Health Coverage goals have catalyzed expansion of HTA. Political will, technical expertise, and sustained financing remain challenges for sustainable HTA programs. Legislation supporting HTA is helpful but political will is key. Recommendations for regional collaboration are provided.