The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) met to discuss the challenges of achieving universal health care (UHC) in Asia.

Group discussions and presentations at the 2017 HAPF, informed by a background paper, including a literature review and the results of pre-meeting surveys of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and industry, formed the basis of this article.

Affordability was identified as the greatest barrier to establishing UHC; however, other impediments include the lack of political will to implement UHC, and the cultural issue of deference to expert opinion instead of evidence-based assessments. Although HTA was identified as an important prioritization tool when adding new technologies to benefit packages, it is used inconsistently in the region, resulting in a less transparent decision-making process for stakeholders. Although regional challenges exist around real-world data (RWD), including a lack of capacity to enable information and data sharing, most policy or funding decision makers in the region have access to data. However, there appears to be a disconnect with the experience of industry, whose representatives identify the lack of RWD as their primary issue. To overcome these issues, both HTA agencies and industry agree that collaboration and transparency should be fostered to support the development of robust evidence generation in the region.

There is a willingness for HTA agencies and industry to collaborate to develop HTA methodology for the prioritization of technologies in the Asia region that support healthcare systems to achieve the ultimate outcome of UHC.

The aim of this study was to identify guidelines and assessment tools used by health technology agencies for quality assurance of registries and investigate the current use of registry data by HTA organizations worldwide.

As part of a European Network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action work package, we undertook a literature search and sent a questionnaire to all partner organizations on the work package and all organizations listed in the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research directory.

We identified thirteen relevant documents relating to quality assurance of registries. We received fifty-five responses from organizations representing twenty-one different countries, a response rate of 40.5 percent (43/110). Many agencies, particularly in Europe, are already drawing on a range of registries to provide data for their HTA. Less than half, however, use criteria or standards to assess the quality of registry data. Nearly all criteria or standards in use have been internally defined by organizations rather than referring to those produced by an external body. A comparison of internal and external standards identified consistency in several quality dimensions, which can be used as a starting point for the development of a standardized tool.

The use of registry data is more prevalent than expected, strengthening the need for a standardized registry quality assessment tool. A user-friendly tool developed in conjunction with stakeholders will support the consistent application of approved quality standards, and reassure critics who have traditionally considered registry data to be unreliable.

Multi-analyte assays with algorithmic analyses (MAAAs) use combinations of circulating and clinical markers including omics-based sources for diagnostic and/or prognostic purposes. Assessing MAAAs is challenging under existing health technology assessment (HTA) methods or practices. We undertook a scoping review to explore the HTA methods used for MAAAs to identify the criteria used for clinical research and reimbursement purposes.

This review included only non-companion (stand-alone) tests that are actionable and that have been evaluated by leading HTA or insurer/reimbursement bodies up to September 2017.

Twenty-five reports and articles evaluating seventeen MAAAs were examined, most of which have been developed in oncology. The two main models used were the EUnetHTA Core model and the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention ACCE framework. Clinical validity and utility criteria were used, as were economic, ethical, legal, and social aspects. Economic evidence on MAAAs was scarce, and there is no consensus on whether the perspectives used are sufficiently broad to include all relevant stakeholders.

Clinical utility and efficiency were the most used criteria, with stronger evidence needed linking the use of the algorithm with the clinical outcomes in real-life practice. HTA bodies must as well consider questions related to the analytical validity of MAAAs or with organizational aspects. The two main models, the EUnetHTA Core model and the ACCE framework, could be adapted to the assessment of MAAAs.

Patients and families play an important role in preventing adverse events. The quality council at our hospital produced a communication tool in considering the main causes of adverse events and requested the health technology assessment (HTA) unit to validate it.

Assess the validity of the content of a tablemat sticker as an information tool for hospitalized patients.

A qualitative validation was first performed with individual interviews and focus groups to evaluate the understanding of the content. The tool was modified and as a second step, a survey was conducted on patients and their families from a surgical care unit to validate their understanding and relevance of the content.

From the survey, patients and families found the tablemat attractive and stimulating (97 percent). It encouraged them to communicate with staff about the safety of their care (84 percent). They understood well the objective (79 percent) and text (90 percent), but less for the pictograms (30 percent to 62 percent). The communication and recommendations to avoid falling were good and 99 percent were wearing the medical identification. However, it was not clear that these indicators represented the real concerns of the patients and healthcare staff because no user evaluation was done when developing the tool.

The tool was well understood, but some improvements are needed considering that pictograms were not always well understood and so need careful consideration from patient perspective. The HTA unit recommended conducting an unbiased survey to assess the concerns of patients and professionals to identify the most relevant indicators.

Determine the relationship between quality of an accountable care organization (ACO) and its long-term reduction in healthcare costs.

We conducted a cost minimization analysis. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid cost and quality data, we calculated weighted composite quality scores for each ACO and organization-level cost savings. We used Markov modeling to compute the probability that an ACO transitioned between different quality levels in successive years. Considering a health-systems perspective with costs discounted at 3 percent, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to project long-term cost savings by quality level over a 10-year period. We compared the change in per-member expenditures of Pioneer (early-adopters) ACOs versus Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs to assess the impact of coordination of care, the main mechanism for cost savings.

Overall, Pioneer ACOs saved USD 641.24 per beneficiary and MSSP ACOs saved USD 535.59 per beneficiary. By quality level: (a) high quality organizations saved the most money (Pioneer: USD 459; MSSP: USD 816); (b) medium quality saved some money (Pioneer: USD 222; MSSP: USD 105); and (c) low quality suffered financial losses (Pioneer: USD -40; MSSP: USD -386).

Within the existing fee-for-service healthcare model, ACOs are a mechanism for decreasing costs by improving quality of care. Higher quality organizations incorporate greater levels of coordination of care, which is associated with greater cost savings. Pioneer ACOs have the highest level of integration of services; hence, they save the most money.

The overarching goal of this research was to (i) evaluate the impact of reports with recommendations provided by a hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) unit on the local hospital decision-making processes and implementation activities and (ii) identify the underlying factors of the nonimplementation of recommendations.

All reports produced by the HB-HTA unit between December 2003 and March 2013 were retrieved, and hospital decision makers who requested these reports were solicited for enrolment. Participants were interviewed using a mixed design survey.

Twenty reports, associated with fifteen decision makers, fulfilled the study criteria. Nine decision makers accepted to participate, corresponding to thirteen reports and twenty-three recommendations. Of the twenty-three recommendations issued, 65 percent were implemented, 9 percent were accepted for implementation but not implemented, and 26 percent were declined. In terms of the utility of each report to guide decision makers, 92 percent of the reports were considered in the decision-making process; 85 percent had one or more recommendations adopted; and 77 percent had recommendations implemented. The most frequently mentioned reasons for nonimplementation were related to contextual factors (64 percent), production/diffusion process factors (14 percent), content/format factors (14 percent), or other factors (9 percent). Among the contextual factors, the complexity of the changes (i.e., administrative reasons), budget and resources constraints, failure to identify administrative responsibility to carry out the recommendation, and nonpriority status of the HTA recommendation, were provided.

This study highlights that although HB-HTA reports are useful to hospital managers in their decision-making processes, certain barriers such as contextual factors need to be better addressed to improve HB-HTA efficiency and usefulness.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exposure in vivo (EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment targeting pain-related fear) in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (CRPS-I), as compared to pain-contingent physical therapy (PPT).

Data from a randomized controlled trial were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of EXP versus PPT from a societal perspective. Intervention costs, other healthcare costs, costs to patient and family, and productivity losses were included. The main outcomes were changes in the SF-36 physical component scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Changes were followed until 6 months after treatment. Uncertainty was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap analysis, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of findings.

Forty-six patients were randomized and thirty-eight completed the study. Over 6 months, EXP resulted in greater improvement in physical health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years than PPT. Despite higher initial treatment costs, EXP showed a tendency to reduce all costs compared with PPT; healthcare costs were significantly reduced. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness planes were in favor of EXP. Sensitivity analyses, for different program costs and complete cases only, confirmed robustness of these findings.

EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment, seems more cost-effective than PPT in CRPS patients with pain-related fear. The initial higher costs for EXP are offset by a long-term reduction of costs for healthcare use, and a tendency to lower work absenteeism and reduced societal costs. Due to low sample sizes, replication of findings is required to confirm results.

The aim of this study was to systematically investigate existing literature on the costs of home-based telemedicine programs, and to further summarize how the costs of these telemedicine programs vary by equipment and services provided.

We undertook a systematic review of related literature by searching electronic bibliographic databases and identifying studies published from January 1, 2000, to November 30, 2017. The search was restricted to studies published in English, results from adult patients, and evaluation of home telemedicine programs implemented in the United States. Summarized telemedicine costs per unit of outcome measures were reported.

Twelve studies were eligible for our review. The overall annual cost of providing home-based telemedicine varied substantially depending on specific chronic conditions, ranging from USD1,352 for heart failure to USD206,718 for congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes as a whole. The estimated cost per-patient-visit ranged from USD24 for cancer to USD39 for CHF, COPD, or chronic wound care.

The costs of home-based telemedicine programs varied substantially by program components, disease type, equipment used, and services provided. All the selected studies indicated that home telemedicine programs reduced care costs, although detailed cost data were either incomplete or not presented in detail. A comprehensive analysis of the cost of home-based telemedicine programs and their determinants is still required before the cost efficiency of these programs can be better understood, which becomes crucial for these programs to be more widely adopted and reimbursed.

Large numbers of new medical devices and diagnostics are developed and health services need to identify which ones offer real advantages. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has introduced a system for assessing technologies that are often notified by companies, based on claims made for their benefits to patients, the National Health Service, and the environment.

Detailed scrutiny of claims made for the benefits of products and the corresponding evidence, seeking associations between these and the selection of products for full evaluation to produce NICE guidance.

Between 2009 and 2015 a NICE committee considered 169 technologies, of which it selected 74 (44 percent) for full evaluation, based on the claims of benefit and the evidence available. An average of 7.5 claims were made per technology; the total number did not influence selection but presence of studies supporting all the claims (p < .001) or any of the claims (p < .05) had a positive influence, as did claims for quicker patient recovery (p < .001). A greater number of studies to support the claims made selection more likely (p < .001), as did cohort studies (p < .05) and surveys (p < .05) but, unexpectedly, not randomized trials. The Medical Device Directive class had no influence.

This study presents categories of claims that may be useful to those developing new products and to others engaged in health technology assessment. It illustrates the importance of relevant evidence and of having a clear vision of the place of new products in care pathways from an early stage.

Adherence to injectable disease-modifying treatments in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) impacts outcomes and can be influenced by perceptions of treatment efficacy, side effects, injection frequency, and the duration of injection. This study aimed to quantify preferences for selected attributes of injectable treatments among individuals with MS in the United Kingdom and France.

Respondents with a self-reported diagnosis of MS completed an online discrete-choice-experiment survey, consisting of a series of treatment-choice questions. Each choice question presented two hypothetical treatments, each with six attributes (years until disability progression, relapses in the next 4 years, injection time, injection frequency, flu-like symptoms (FLS), and injection-site reactions), each with various levels. Mixed-logit regression analysis was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels and to calculate the relative importance of changes in treatment attributes (vertical distance between preference weights). Minimum acceptable efficacy estimates indicate improvement in efficacy that respondents would require in exchange for worsening injection frequency and FLS.

In both countries, 100 respondents completed the survey. In the United Kingdom and France, respectively, improving the time until disability progression from 2 to 4 years, reducing injection frequency from “daily” to “every 2 weeks”, and reducing FLS from 3 days after every injection to none had a relative importance of 2.9 and 2.6, 3.0 and 3.5, and 2.5 and 3.1. Given the ranges included in the study, changes in these attributes were more important than most changes in other attributes assessed.

Reductions in the injection frequency of MS treatments and FLS can be as important to patients as improvements in treatment efficacy.