Health technology assessment (HTA) applications in low- and middle-income countries face limited technical capacities. The Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) is a key player in strengthening HTA expertise in the region and offers a variety of courses. Over 200 students from across Latin America have undertaken our introductory course on HTA and economic evaluation in the last four years.

The IECS provides a nine-week introductory online course focused on the fundamentals of HTA and economic evaluation. The course is designed for healthcare professionals (doctors, administrators, auditors, nurses, pharmacists, lawyers, etc.). The materials are available in Spanish and Portuguese on a virtual campus with asynchronous activities. Students are guided by instructors through an exchange forum. This study aimed to showcase the outcomes of this HTA course. Our analysis encompassed quantitative and qualitative data from a survey administered to nine student cohorts over the last four years. The surveys featured eight question categories covering materials, activities, quizzes, course dynamics, forum usage, tutoring, and satisfaction.

A total of 234 students from Latin America were enrolled in the course. More than half came from Argentina (68%). Of the initial enrollees, 212 (91%) started the course and 192 (91%) of them passed. The satisfaction survey was completed by 168 students. Ninety-six percent of students were satisfied or very satisfied with the course overall, and the same percentage would recommend it to a colleague. Eighty-six percent felt that they could adequately follow the course, and 40 percent of students dedicating an average of two to four hours per week to the course.

Having accessible and feasible training opportunities in the region is important. The IECS HTA and economic course enhances HTA expertise in Latin America, as evidenced by its high rates of enrolment, completion, and satisfaction, with over 90 percent of participants recommending it. This underscores its effectiveness in reinforcing health decision-making knowledge in Latin America and contributing to the advancement of health policy.

Advances in next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP) diagnostics require a value framework (VF) for accurate assessment within cancer care in Europe. Building on a previously established VF for diagnostic technologies in Latin America by the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), this study synthesizes insights from a systematic literature review and stakeholder perspectives to inform the co-creation of an NGS/CGP diagnostic framework for healthcare decision-making.

The study utilized a mixed methods approach including a systematic literature review (SLR) and web-Delphi panel. The SLR identified and mapped existing VFs against the IECS VF, extracting non-overlapping criteria relevant to NGS/CGP in Europe. A Delphi panel further adapted and validated the framework, ensuring comprehensive stakeholder contribution and engagement. The Delphi´s first round was qualitative and involved open-ended feedback from participants to adapt the indicators and domains. Rounds two through four involved Likert-scale judgments of importance of each indicator. In rounds three and four, participants were shown the distribution of responses across stakeholders and could reconsider their answers.

The SLR revealed 42 VFs with an 83 percent criterion overlap with the IECS VF, resulting in 46 indicators forming the literature-adapted framework. Thirty-four participants completed the Delphi. In round one, 14 indicators and 22 descriptions were adapted, 11 indicators were merged, 14 were deleted, and one was kept the same resulting in 29 indicators for scoring in round two. The final VF has 27 indicators: 23 essential and four complementary; two indicators did not reach consensus. The domains included clinical impact, test performance, scientific evidence quality, non-clinical impact, health system integration, economic aspects, ethical/governance concerns, and health system priorities.

This approach has yielded a robust, stakeholder co-created VF for NGS/CGP diagnostics in oncology, tailored to the European setting. It offers a comprehensive set of criteria that extends beyond traditional health technology assessments, incorporating novel aspects like post-test data governance. This framework sets the stage for improving patient access to high-value technologies by aligning European stakeholder values across health systems.

Value frameworks play a crucial role in bridging the gap between evidence and decision-making in health care, particularly in settings with limited budgets. In this study, we present the results of an implemented value framework (VF) to provide coverage recommendations in rapid health technology assessment (HTA) reports.

A search was performed to identify existing HTA frameworks. Relevant criteria and methods of assessment were then selected. A color-coded system was applied to categorize each criterion. A Delphi panel was conducted to determine the overall recommendations and to weigh the criteria and correlate them with the recommendations. To assess the performance, we reviewed the results of rapid HTA reports from the last five years.

The value framework had three domains. We adapted widely used methodologies for the quality of evidence and net benefit domains. The economic impact domain was the most complex to assess, so a customized method was developed. Analysis of 265 HTAs revealed the distribution of recommendations across various criteria and technology types. Most recommendations were for drugs (40.5%) or for therapeutic procedures (36%). Among the final recommendations, 0.8 percent were favorable, 19.7 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent were unfavorable.

The VF demonstrated its versatility and practicality in meeting the needs of rapid HTA requesters and facilitating evidence-informed decision-making. The VF serves as a valuable tool for conducting adaptive rapid HTAs and supports decision-making processes in Argentina and similar contexts.

The objective of Health Technology Assessment International’s 6th Latin America Policy Form, held in 2021, was to explore the implementation of deliberative processes in the framework of health technology assessment (HTA) and how agencies in the region could involve stakeholders in this process.

This paper is based on a preparatory survey, a background document, and the deliberative work of participants at the virtual Forum conducted in 2021. There were ninety-one participants in the open session and fifty-two in the closed sessions, representing twelve countries and diverse areas of the health sector.

While there are mechanisms in most countries in Latin America to consider stakeholder involvement to some degree, it remains reduced or limited to a consultative role, making true participative involvement rare. There are significant barriers and structural and contextual limitations that have impeded or slowed progress toward deliberative processes. Relatively low levels of institutionalization and knowledge about HTA, as well as the lack of trust among stakeholders are important challenges. This situation has impacted health systems by diminishing the legitimacy of decisions and the very structures and processes of HTA.

The Forum’s broad group of participants identified barriers, facilitators, and recommendations to improve the use of deliberative processes in Latin America to foster improved fairness and reasonableness in HTA and decision making.

Argentina has a fragmented healthcare system with social security covering almost two thirds of the population. Its benefit package—called compulsory medical program (PMO; by its Spanish acronym Programa Médico Obligatorio)—has not been formally and widely updated since 2005. However, laws, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and a high-cost technology reimbursement fund complement it. Our objective was to comprehensively review such a PMO and propose an update considering the corresponding complementary sources.

We followed four steps: (i) identification of health technologies from the current PMO and complementary sources, (ii) prioritization, (iii) assessment through rapid health technology assessment (HTA), and (iv) appraisal and recommendations. We evaluated three value domains: quality of evidence, net benefit, and economics, which were summarized in a five-category recommendation traffic-light scale ranging from a strong recommendation in favor of inclusion to a strong recommendation for exclusion.

Eight hundred fifty technologies were identified; 164 of those, considered as high priority, were assessed through rapid HTAs. Those technologies mentioned in laws and CPGs were mostly outpatient essential medicines, whereas those from the reimbursement system were mostly high-cost drugs; of these 101 technologies, 50 percent were recommended to be kept in the PMO. The other 63 (identified by the Superintendence of Health Services, technology producers, and patients) were mostly medical procedures and high-cost drugs; only 25 percent of those resulted in a favorable recommendation.

A methodology based on four clearly identified steps was used to carry out a comprehensive review of an outdated and fragmented benefit package. The use of rapid HTAs and a traffic-light recommendation framework facilitated the deliberative evidence-based update.

Ningún sistema de salud cuenta con los recursos necesarios para evaluar todas las tecnologías. Contar con un proceso claro para priorizar qué tecnologías serán evaluadas por las agencias de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETESA) constituye un principio de buena práctica reconocido a nivel internacional. El objetivo del Foro de Políticas en Latino América (LatamPF) 2020 de Health Technology Assessment International fue explorar cómo puede mejorarse la forma en que las agencias de ETESA de Latino América identifican y priorizan las tecnologías a ser evaluadas.

Este manuscrito está basado en un documento base, una encuesta, y en el trabajo deliberativo realizado por los miembros (cuarenta y seis participantes, once países) que participaron del LatamPF, a través de la metodología design-thinking.

Los participantes coincidieron en que la falta de mecanismos claros de priorización trae como consecuencia una falta de legitimidad de las decisiones y procesos de ETESA, que son percibidos como poco transparentes y demasiado expuestos a presiones políticas o de grupos de interés. También se identificaron barreras y acciones para mejorar los mecanismos de priorización de ETESA en América Latina. Los criterios identificados como más importantes para ser tenidos en cuenta por las agencias de ETESA de la región al momento de priorizar una tecnología para ser evaluada fueron la carga de enfermedad, el potencial beneficio clínico, la alineación con prioridades de salud nacionales, el potencial impacto en la equidad, ausencia de otras alternativas para los pacientes, y el potencial impacto económico.

Los participantes del Foro coincidieron en que el establecimiento de procesos transparentes de priorización es un elemento clave para todos los sistemas de salud. Las mejoras en este proceso fortalecerán la ETESA en Latino América y darán mayor legitimidad a sus decisiones.

There is no health system that has the resources to evaluate all technologies. The presence of a clear process to prioritize health technologies for assessment by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies is a good practice principle recognized at the international level. The objective of Health Technology Assessment International's 2020 Latin American Policy Forum (LatamPF) was to explore how to improve the way HTA agencies in Latin America identify and prioritize technologies for assessment.

This paper is based on a background document, a survey, and the deliberations of the members of the LatamPF (forty-six participants from eleven countries) using a design thinking methodology.

Participants agreed that a lack of clear prioritization mechanisms results in HTA processes and decisions that are perceived to be of low transparency and overly exposed to political or interest group pressures. The LatamPF identified barriers and recommended actions to improve HTA prioritization mechanisms in Latin America. The criteria identified as the most important to be taken into consideration by HTA agencies in the region when prioritizing a technology for assessment were: the burden of illness, the potential clinical benefit, the alignment with national health priorities, the potential impact on equity, a lack of treatment alternatives for patients, and the potential economic impact.

Forum participants agreed that the establishment of transparent prioritization processes is a key element for all health systems. Improvements in these processes will strengthen HTA and provide greater legitimacy to decision making.

Un vínculo claro entre la evaluación y la toma de decisión constituye un principio de buena práctica en evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETESA) reconocido a nivel internacional. El objetivo del Foro de Políticas en Latino-América (LatamPF) 2019 de Health Technology Assessment International fue explorar los diferentes modelos que vinculan la ETESA y la toma de decisión y discutir su potencial aplicabilidad en Latino-América.

Este manuscrito está basado en un documento base y en el trabajo deliberativo realizado por los miembros (54 participantes, 12 países) que asistieron al LatamPF, a través de la metodología design thinking.

Los participantes coincidieron en que la relación inapropiada entre la ETESA y la toma de decisión atenta hoy contra la legitimidad de las decisiones, expone al proceso de ETESA a una excesiva influencia política y judicial, y condiciona que algunos actores se sientan relegados del proceso de evaluación y toma de decisión. Se identificaron los atributos del proceso de ETESA más prioritarios y factibles de ser mejorados en la región, y con el mayor potencial para generar un cambio positivo en los sistemas de salud. La mayor parte de estos están vinculados con la apropiada institucionalización de la ETESA, ampliar la participación de los diferentes actores y mejorar la transparencia de los procesos de ETESA.

El LatamPF ha identificado barreras y recomendado acciones para reforzar el vínculo entre ETESA y la decisión. A su vez, existe en estos momentos una ventana de oportunidad en la región, ya que el tema es visualizado como una prioridad por gran parte de los actores de la sociedad. Por ello, los diferentes actores de los sistemas sanitarios deberían ahora tomar esta oportunidad para avanzar en el fortalecimiento del vínculo entre ETESA y toma de decisión.

One of the good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) is having a clear link between the assessment and decision making. The objective of the 2019 Latin American Policy Forum (LatamPF) of Health Technology Assessment International was to explore different models of connection between HTA and decision making and to discuss the potential applicability of such models in Latin America.

This paper is based on a background document and the deliberations of the members of the LatamPF (fifty-four participants from twelve countries) where a design-thinking methodology was used.

The participants agreed that insufficient links between HTA and decision making undermine the legitimacy of decisions, expose the HTA process to excessive political and judicial influence, and promote the exclusion of some stakeholders from participating in the assessment process and decision making. High priority aspects of the HTA process that could feasibly be improved and which hold the greatest potential to generate positive changes in the health systems in the region were identified. The majority of these aspects were associated with the appropriate institutionalization of HTA, a greater degree of participation by different stakeholders, and improved transparency in the HTA process.

The LatamPF identified barriers and recommended actions to strengthen the link between HTA and decision making. Participants emphasized that there is now a window of opportunity in the region as many societal actors see this as a priority. For this reason, health system stakeholders must take this opportunity to increase efforts toward strengthening the link between HTA and decision making.