Access to quality healthcare is often limited in rural and underserved areas, leading to higher rates of preventable diseases, avoidable hospitalizations, and mortality. Virtual health clinics, utilizing telehealth and telemedicine technologies, offer a promising solution to bridge these gaps. This scoping review aimed to systematically identify and analyze the benefits, outcomes, and service range of virtual clinics in remote and underserved settings.

This scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage framework. Relevant literature was searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google, and Google Scholar. Data were extracted using a standardized charting form and thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s method with MAXQDA software.

A total of 38 benefits of virtual clinics were identified, primarily related to improved access to health services, reduced costs, and decreased patient travel. In the domain of governance and leadership, enhanced governmental support and optimal resource allocation were reported. For human resources, improved communication and training were emphasized. Moreover, the use of local technologies, remote medication ordering, and digital record-keeping demonstrated a significant impact, particularly in middle- and high-income countries.

Virtual clinics can effectively enhance the quality and accessibility of health services in underserved areas and play an important role in reducing health inequities.

Patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is nascent globally especially in Asia. The aim was to assess patient awareness, involvement, and learning needs of HTA, particularly in Asia.

An online survey assessed HTA awareness, involvement, and learning needs among patients and caregivers across 33 countries from October 2021 to July 2022.

The survey of 170 participants (127 Asians, 43 non-Asians) revealed that 52.3 percent (89 of 170) were unaware of HTA, only 14.1 percent (24 of 170) engaged in HTA, and only 9.3 percent (15 of 161) had received training. The Asian group exhibited significantly lower HTA awareness (mean score 24.6 vs. 30.4, p < 0.05) and had lower participation rates in HTA discussions (10.2 percent, 13 of 127) compared to the non-Asian group (25.6 percent, 11 of 43) (p < 0.05). Among participants without prior HTA training, 68.5 percent (100 of 146) expressed a learning need.

Patient awareness and involvement in HTA were low globally, particularly in Asia. There was a strong patient learning need for HTA globally.

Few studies report the evaluation of the use of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations’ knowledge products.

To determine (a) the stakeholders’ use of the products disseminated by the ‘Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux’ (INESSS), and (b) the variability of use according to user characteristics and product properties.

A prospective web survey was performed. We included all participants who accessed INESSS products and voluntarily completed an online questionnaire from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2022. For each rated product, the participants’ use and intention to use were documented using the content-validated Information Assessment Method (IAM) questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted.

A total of 7041 responses were gathered. After removing incomplete and ineligible responses, we were left with 5236 responses; 74.4 percent of responses were from women; 5014 (95.8 percent) reported that the product was relevant; of those, 4322 (82.5 percent) indicated that the respondent was satisfied; of those, 4096 (78.2 percent) reported that the product was used or had an intention to use the product. Regarding products’ use (n = 3023; 57.7 percent), there was no difference between regions with versus without medical faculties. Older participants were less likely to report using a product. Products with recommendations were more likely to be used, and healthcare professionals were more likely to use the products compared to other participants.

Current findings help identify audiences for targeted dissemination, guide user engagement strategies, and inform product refinement. Recommendation-containing products show the greatest uptake, particularly among younger professionals.

This study aims to systematically identify and summarize the key characteristics of Mini-Health Technology Assessment (Mini-HTA) and assess the completeness of its basic reporting information, providing a theoretical foundation for developing future reporting guidelines..

A comprehensive search for Mini-HTAs was performed using CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, HTA database, and major HTA-related websites from inception until February 2024. The completeness of basic information reporting in Mini-HTAs was assessed using the INAHTA checklist. The key characteristics of the included Mini-HTAs were summarized descriptively. Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to analyze and visually present the data.

A total of 21 Mini-HTA reports were included, with the highest number published in 2021 (5 reports, 23.8 percent). China contributed the most reports (18 reports, 85.7 percent). The most common assessment purpose was technology comparison (15 reports, 71.4 percent), with general hospitals being the predominant assessment setting (17 reports, 80.9 percent), and drugs being the most frequently assessed technology type (14 reports, 66.7 percent). The INAHTA checklist evaluation identified notable deficiencies in reporting key methodological aspects, including participant roles, conflict of interest statements, data sources, literature search strategies, and methods for data assessment and analysis.

Mini-HTAs have significantly increased in China since 2020, mainly in technology comparison, drug evaluation, and general hospitals. However, gaps remain in reporting key aspects, such as participant roles, conflict of interest, and data sources. Future efforts should focus on refining reporting guidelines to improve consistency and address these reporting deficiencies in Mini-HTA.

This study aims to explore the perspectives on disinvestment of low-value care and interventions in Malaysia’s healthcare system, with a focus on establishing the criteria for assessing disinvestment candidates, identifying potential barriers, and proposing strategies to improve the acceptance and effective implementation of disinvestment.

Between March and May 2023, we conducted online, semistructured interviews with seventeen Malaysian healthcare stakeholders with different professional roles at various levels of governance and decision making. Participants were recruited through a mix of purposive and snowballing sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using inductive thematic approach in Atlas.ti.

We identified four major themes: disinvestment as a catalyst for efficient resource allocation; disinvestment as a justifiable way of cutting budgets; challenges and barriers in implementation; and strategies for value-based assessment and effective implementation. Stakeholders viewed disinvestment both optimistically and skeptically in terms of its implementation but were unanimous in including equity as a key component in decision making. Practical challenges and uncertainty among healthcare professionals emerged as significant barriers to implementing disinvestment initiatives in Malaysia.

Malaysian stakeholders viewed disinvestment as both an opportunity to improve resource allocation and a source of concern due to potential negative consequences and system readiness. This study identified strategies to support value-based assessment and implementation, underscoring the need for accountability and collaboration. Although current disinvestment efforts in Malaysia remain limited and undocumented, the thematic framework developed offers transferable insights and a structured lens for assessing readiness. These stakeholder-derived themes can guide other countries in designing transparent, equitable, and context-sensitive disinvestment processes.

Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to help to inform resource-allocation decision-making in healthcare systems. The manufacturers of new health technologies may choose to employ “early cost-effectiveness analysis” (eCEA) to inform the technology development process in anticipation of a value-based assessment if and when the technology is launched. We aim to provide guidance on how eCEA can effectively inform health technology development processes, presenting novel methodological approaches to address key decision-making questions.

We present three core health technology development questions that eCEAs can address, as well as recommendations for deriving and presenting insights from eCEA models. A hypothetical treatment for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) called “dummymab” demonstrates the analytic techniques and presentation formats.

We provide guidance for addressing: 1. What is a health technology’s value-based price (VBP) under a range of scenarios? 2. To what extent do different attributes of the technology contribute to its value? 3. Regarding what model parameters is further evidence most valuable? A novel net benefit approach for value driver analysis provides more reliable estimates than traditional ‘switch-on’ methods by avoiding parameter interaction effects. The manufacturer-perspective value-of-information framework enables evidence prioritization aligned with commercial decision-making while maintaining cost-effectiveness principles.

eCEA can systematically inform technology development through value-based price estimation, value driver identification, and evidence prioritization. Implementing development decision-making based on eCEA insights can foster alignment with value-based principles of HTA-orientated decision-making systems while supporting more efficient resource allocation in technology development.

New technologies are being developed in a context of scarcity. Health technology assessment (HTA) aims to support decision makers in providing equitable and affordable access to effective innovations. This study aims to summarize the policy-related findings of a Horizon2020 project on innovating HTA methods and discuss their implications for the governance of HTA in Europe.

A thematic analysis of policy-oriented papers (n = 18) from the Next Generation Health Technology Assessment (HTx) project was carried out to summarize challenges and solutions. Subsequently, via an online survey and in a 2-day meeting, European and global stakeholders (n = 21) were invited to comment on these solutions and to prioritize future strategies.

Reported challenges included a lack of access to standardized data, differences in evidentiary needs, existing policy structures, and a lack of capacity and knowledge. Suggested solutions were capacity building, national and international dialogues, standardization, and increased European collaboration. Stakeholders had different expectations with respect to the likely success of these solutions.

Innovation of HTA requires alignment of evidentiary needs through dialogues, standardization through increased European collaboration, and capacity building. However, without additional investments in personnel capacity, HTA agencies must still prioritize some activities at the expense of others. Furthermore, although European collaboration is important, global alignment might be required to enforce standardization.

Hospitals are at the front line of adopting new health technologies, yet decision-making is often hampered by insufficient evidence, limited context, and misaligned priorities. Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) provides a structured mechanism to evaluate innovations at the institutional level. However, published accounts of HB-HTA implementation remain scarce, particularly in Asian contexts.

We describe Singapore General Hospital’s (SGH) approach to institutionalizing HB-HTA through a three-pronged strategy: (1) structured two-page narrative proposals to ensure clarity, rigor, and alignment with organizational priorities; (2) establishment of a dedicated HB-HTA team – the Impact Assessment, Program Evaluation, and Implementation Research team; and (3) targeted training programs to build capacity among clinical and managerial staff. Evaluation of the framework included formative feedback from proposers and senior leaders, surveys of participant satisfaction, and qualitative interviews.

Between 2023 and 2024, SGH piloted and scaled the HB-HTA framework, reviewing 15 proposals exceeding USD $40 million across domains, including artificial intelligence, robotics, diagnostics, and therapeutic devices. Training workshops engaged 55 participants with high Net Promoter Scores (≥50 percent), while surveys of senior leadership showed that 91 percent were satisfied or very satisfied with the process. Qualitative feedback highlighted improved strategic alignment, transparency, and confidence in decision-making.

SGH’s experience demonstrates that embedding HB-HTA requires deliberate organizational design, leadership commitment, and stakeholder engagement. By combining concise narrative proposals with independent in-house assessments, hospitals can strengthen governance, foster accountability, and support value-driven innovation. This model offers a practical roadmap for institutions seeking to formalize HB-HTA within their decision-making processes.

Many European countries independently conduct horizon scanning activities. However, the costs, time, and resources required can be prohibitive. To address this, the International Horizon Scanning Initiative (IHSI) was launched in 2019. IHSI aims to facilitate decision-makers and payers in negotiating fair prices and preparing for potentially disruptive pharmaceuticals. IHSI developed the Joint Horizon Scanning Database, a repository of pharmaceuticals expected to enter the European market, and initiated a series of High Impact Reports (HIRs) to highlight pharmaceuticals that have the potential to significantly impact healthcare systems. This paper outlines the development of key performance indicators (KPIs) that can be used to evaluate IHSI’s work.

In close collaboration with representatives from IHSI member countries and its Executive Committee, the following KPIs were developed: “Number of IHSI member countries”, “Embedding of IHSI in national health technology assessment procedures”, “Database coverage”, “Data completeness”, “Data timeliness”, “Accuracy of identifying disruptive pharmaceuticals”, “Accuracy of identifying non-disruptive pharmaceuticals”, “Use of HIRs in preparing for disruption to the healthcare system”, and “Use of HIRs in price negotiations and financial arrangements”. Among these, “Accuracy of identifying disruptive pharmaceuticals” was considered most important, followed by “Data timeliness” and “Data completeness”. Additionally, based on consultations with nonmember countries, strategies for improvement were identified should the KPIs reveal areas for improvement. These include involving patients in the selection of pharmaceuticals and conducting reputation surveys alongside measuring KPIs. While the KPIs and strategies for improvement are specific to IHSI, they can be tailored to support other (international) horizon scanning initiatives.

Economic evaluation supports public funding decisions about the use of health technologies within the Portuguese National Health System (NHS). The methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal serves both companies preparing economic evaluation submissions and the independent commission appraising the evidence submitted.

This article presents the revised methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal. The revisions reflect advances in economic evaluation, updates to regulatory policies, and responses to the evolving economic context. The paper highlights the most significant changes to the guidance, comparing the new Portuguese guidelines to those from the United Kingdom and Canada. The discussion is framed around key comments received during public consultation.

The updated guidelines recommend cost-effectiveness analyses based on quality-adjusted life years and advocate for long-term modelling, a 4 percent discount rate, and a focus on NHS costs. New features include guidance on the identification and management of uncertainty within a dynamic appraisal process with regular contract negotiations (which can trigger reappraisals). The guide also covers how cost-effectiveness models, typically centrally developed, should be adapted to the Portuguese context. It highlights the key role of structured expert elicitation to address uncertainties in evidence, including those related to model adaptation.

The revision was developed through stakeholder consultations and aligns with international best practices, offering more explicit and transparent methods to support health resource allocation decisions.

Our objective was to identify key patterns and discuss the lessons learned from the use of real-world data (RWD) in the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of innovative health products (IHPs) as assessed by the French National Authority for Health from January 2016 to May 2023.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the use of RWD in the CEAs of IHPs. Our material included HAS assessments of CEAs and manufacturers’ technical reports. The RWD studies were classified into eight categories, and a specific template was constructed to report and discuss their use in terms of predefined methodological aspects.

In all, 88 percent (129/147) of the CEAs integrated RWD studies. Retrospective cohorts were the most frequently used kind of study in the CEAs, while prospective cohorts were mainly used to identify the analyzed population and to externally validate models. We identified opposing temporal trends in the use of cohort studies versus registries. Approximately 8 percent (10/129) of the CEAs could be adjudged as invalidated due to major limitations regarding RWD use (e.g., lack of relative effectiveness).

We learned several lessons from the use of RWD in the HAS assessments of the CEAs of IHPs. Retrospective cohort studies were the most commonly used RWD source to populate CEA parameters of the CEAs regardless of the type of IHP, and their use has increased over time. The implementation of good practices for the use of RWD studies should improve the role of RWD in economic modeling and address uncertainties surrounding CEAs.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) within Ukraine’s healthcare system, focusing on its potential to strengthen evidence-based decision-making regarding clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-efficiency, and organizational and strategic impact of health technologies (HTs) in healthcare facilities (HCFs).

We collected and synthesized key initiatives implemented between 2021 and 2025, outlining the main steps involved in introducing HB-HTA in Ukraine.

The article describes the landscape of the Ukrainian healthcare system and shares the experience of the initial steps of HB-HTA introduction amid tight budgets and increasing demands. Drawing on international models and adapting them to the national context, we outline key implementation strategies, the development of scientific and methodological approaches for HB-HTA, and the integration of a pilot HB-HTA project within a leading national HCF known for its high-level diagnostic and operational capabilities.

The conducted pilot laid the groundwork for integrating HB-HTA into Ukraine’s healthcare system and demonstrated its role in empowering HCFs to guide smarter budget allocation and procurement decisions, especially in the context of decentralization. With continued investment in expertise, legal integration, and streamlined methodology, HB-HTA can become a cornerstone of transparent, cost-effective decision-making across the HCFs of the National healthcare system. The experience gained in Ukraine provides valuable insights that can support other countries in effectively adopting and utilizing HTs at the hospital level.

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to an authorized reference medicine, offering substantial cost savings and increased treatment access. Despite the regulatory framework in the UK and EU facilitating their approval, the biosimilar landscape remains small compared to small-molecule drugs. This study provides a horizon scanning overview of the current biosimilar landscape, procured through horizon scanning activities.

Data were sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register, scanned monthly to identify innovative medicines in clinical development. We included biosimilars identified through horizon scanning from April 2017 to February 2025. Supplementary data were collected from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain approval status, and additional clinical trial information was manually extracted from relevant registries.

We identified 156 unique biosimilars developed across 174 clinical trials, with sixty-four approved by the MHRA and seventy-eight by the European Medicines Agency. Adalimumab, bevacizumab, and denosumab were the reference products with the most biosimilars in development. Most biosimilar trials were at phase III. There are seventy-one biosimilars in active development.

The development landscape of biosimilars in the UK and EU show high activity levels. Continuous improvements in horizon scanning methods and regulatory frameworks are essential to support the timely adoption of biosimilars, maximizing their benefits for healthcare systems.

Disinvesting from rare disease therapies with persistent clinical uncertainties following a managed entry agreement (MEA) may be necessary to ensure an equitable and sustainable healthcare system. To minimize public controversy, communication surrounding such disinvestment decisions must be timely, transparent, and tailored to stakeholder needs. This study develops a structured communication roadmap for disinvestment decisions in the Belgian context, addressing the clinical, financial, ethical, psychological, and social implications.

Three advisory board meetings were conducted with nine experts from academia, clinical practice, health insurance funds, patient organizations, and the Belgian Drug Reimbursement Committee. A targeted review of peer-reviewed literature, legal texts, and policy documents informed the discussion guide. Meetings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using NVivo 14, following grounded theory principles.

Disinvestment decisions should be evidence-based and communicated clearly and pragmatically in a context-specific manner. The proposed five-step roadmap defines the roles, responsibilities, and timelines of key stakeholders and provides guidance for public-facing documents, including a lay summary of the health technology reassessment report and written communications for patients and the public. Effective and timely communication with patients requires close collaboration among stakeholders. Moreover, regular engagement with healthcare providers and patients throughout the MEA period can enhance understanding and acceptance of the final decision.

Transparent, collaborative, and adaptable communication strategies can facilitate the implementation of disinvestment decisions and help maintain trust among patients and the public. Although developed for rare disease therapies in Belgium, the proposed principles and roadmap are applicable to disinvestment processes in other healthcare systems.

Reducing health inequalities and improving health equity have become pressing priorities for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and healthcare payers globally, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups. Equity considerations are now being embedded across strategic frameworks and HTA processes in countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia. Examples include NICE’s Core20PLUS5 initiative and PBAC’s policy shift allowing broader prescribing access to address care disparities. However, systematically incorporating quantitative equity measures into HTA presents significant challenges, given the diversity of equity subgroups and varying national contexts.

At the 2024 CDA-AMC Symposium, we convened stakeholders to discuss the challenges and opportunities for integrating equity into HTA.

Key insights included ICER’s framework for embedding equity across the HTA lifecycle and NICE’s evolving application of Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (DCEA), as demonstrated in the appraisal of exagamglogene autotemcel for beta-thalassemia. DCEA, while increasingly recognized, requires robust real-world data and clearer guidance on trade-offs between equity and efficiency. Manufacturers are aligning equity goals with ESG priorities but seek greater clarity from HTA bodies on how equity evidence influences decision-making. NICE and ICER emphasize the need for deliberative processes to capture equity dimensions not reflected in traditional cost-effectiveness analysis.

Advancing health equity in HTA will require cross-sector collaboration to develop guidance, improve data infrastructure, and standardize methodologies. Equity-focused evidence generation across the “staircase of inequality” – from need to access and outcomes – can support more inclusive HTA and reimbursement decisions, ultimately fostering a fairer and more effective healthcare system.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guides healthcare decision-making, while Implementation Research (IR) addresses challenges in operationalizing these decisions. The SAVING (Sustainable Access and Delivery of New Vaccines in Ghana) Consortium aims to enhance health intervention delivery in Ghana, focusing on HTA evidence. This study identifies barriers to the application of HTA-related evidence (cost analysis) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine deployment in Ghana.

This qualitative exploratory study purposively selected 12 key stakeholders with high interest and power relating to COVID-19 vaccine deployment in Ghana. Through in-depth interviews, seven stakeholders from diverse sectors contributed insights into barriers to the application of HTA-related evidence. Thematic analysis was conducted with narrative reporting supported by direct quotes for substantiation.

Six main barriers were identified: (1) timing and access to HTA reports, (2) technical complexities, (3) relevance of content, (4) political considerations and power dynamics, (5) health system fragmentation, and (6) poor responsiveness of decision-makers to research. Proposed solutions include engaging political decision-makers continuously, simplifying technical reports, aligning report content with policymakers’ needs, reducing political considerations, enhancing capacity building, fostering health system cohesion, and improving responsiveness to research.

HTA is vital for informed healthcare decisions. However, technical complexity, relevance of content, inappropriate timing, and lack of access to HTA reports, among other barriers, prevent the uptake of HTA findings. Continuous and improved engagement between HTA producers and policymakers, along with rapid production of HTA, has the potential to improve the uptake of HTA findings, even during public health emergencies.

While rapid health technology assessments (HTA) are important for decision makers, there is no universally accepted definition or standardized methods. The objective of this study was to analyze the content and conduct of published rapid and mini-HTA reports.

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of rapid and mini-HTA reports identified from the International HTA Database (2014–April 2024) and supplementary searches of HTA agency websites. We extracted descriptive data on rapid HTA products; specifically, which traditional HTA domains were included or omitted, evidence synthesis methods, and approaches to interest-holder (formerly known as stakeholder) engagement. Data analysis was conducted in Stata.

We included 203 rapid HTA reports. Most frequently included HTA domains were clinical effectiveness (99 percent) and safety (82.3 percent). Legal aspects (12.3 percent) and budget impact analyses (10.8 percent) were less frequently reported. Across reports reviewing clinical effectiveness (n = 201), generic literature searches were the most predominantly self-reported evidence synthesis method (37.8 percent), with updates (1.5 percent) and overviews (2 percent) of systematic reviews less common. Cost-utility analyses were the most commonly self-reported form of economic evaluation (36.2 percent). Additionally, public consultations (68 percent) were the most commonly reported ways to engage with interest holders.

Our analysis highlights variations across rapid HTA reports and will contribute to wider research aiming to establish a clearer definition and framework of rapid HTAs and inform when and how rapid HTAs are performed. Clearer reporting and justification of simplifications in rapid HTA reports are needed.

Australia and Canada have parallel submission processes allowing companies to submit dossiers to the respective health technology assessment (HTA) body before marketing authorization is issued, aiming to provide more timely access to drugs. This study investigated the associations of submission strategies with new active substance (NAS) rollout times and HTA recommendations.

This retrospective observational study analyzed HTA appraisals by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) for NASs that received their first HTA recommendation between 2019 and 2023. Regulatory and HTA dates were sourced from public records. We implemented logistic regression to examine associations of HTA recommendation (optimal vs non-optimal). Linear regression was used to test associations of rollout time. Models were adjusted for submission sequence, country, therapeutic area, expedited review, conditional review, top R&D spenders, and year of HTA recommendation.

229 HTA appraisals (126/229 parallel) were included. Parallel submissions were associated with a 14.0-month shorter rollout time compared to sequential submissions (p < 0.001). Rollout times in Canada were 6.0 months longer than those in Australia. Parallel submissions were associated with higher odds of receiving an optimal recommendation compared to sequential submissions (OR: 2.2; 95 percent CI: 1.2–4.2; p = 0.013). The odds of obtaining an optimal first HTA recommendation were higher in Canada than in Australia.

NASs following parallel submission showed faster rollout times than those following traditional sequential submission. Moreover, parallel submissions were associated with higher odds of receiving an optimal recommendation. These findings highlight the value of aligning regulatory and HTA processes.