Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

A review of global health technology assessments of non-VKA oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

This review assessed global health technology assessment (HTA) reports and recommendations of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

METHODS

NHTA agency websites were searched for HTA reports evaluating NOACs versus NOACs or vitamin K antagonists. HTA methods and information on patient involvement/access were collected and empirically analyzed.

RESULTS

The review identified 38 unique HTA reports published between 2012 and 2017 in 16 countries including 11 in Europe. NOACs that were cost-effective per local willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were positively recommended for the treatment of NVAF. WTP thresholds ranged from €20,000 to 69,000. Apixaban was recommended in 10/12 (83%) countries, dabigatran in 9/13 (69%) countries, and rivaroxaban in 10/13 (76%) over warfarin. Edoxaban was recommended in 5/7 (71%) countries. Economic evaluations and recommendations comparing NOACs were sparse (two or three countries per NOAC) and generally favored apixaban and edoxaban, followed by dabigatran. Eleven HTA reports from four countries considered the patient voice (Canada [n = 3], Scotland [n = 3], England [n = 4], Brazil [n = 1]); however, only 2/11 (18%) developed recommendations based on this. Among the reports with a positive recommendation, 26/30 (87%) featured a decision that aligned with the approved regulatory label.

CONCLUSIONS

Most agencies recommended NOACs over warfarin for patients with NVAF. Few countries made statements recommending one NOAC over another. Given different WTP thresholds, a drug that is cost-effective in one market may not be in another. Therefore, the various NOAC recommendations from HTA agencies cannot be generalized across different countries.

How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making

Innovations in vaccine product attributes could play an important role in addressing coverage and equity (C&E) gaps, but there is currently a poor understanding of the full system impact and trade-offs associated with investing in such technologies, both from the perspective of national immunisation programmes (NIPs) and vaccine developers. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) was developed as an approach to evaluate vaccines with different product attributes from a systems perspective, in order to analyse and compare the value of innovative vaccine products in different settings.

The TSE approach has been advanced over the years by various stakeholders including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Gavi, PATH, UNICEF and WHO. WHO further developed the TSE approach to incorporate the country perspective into immunisation decision-making, in order for countries to evaluate innovative products for introduction and product switch decisions, and for vaccine development stakeholders to conduct their assessments of product value in line with country preferences. This paper describes the original TSE approach, development of the tool and processes for NIPs to apply the WHO TSE approach, and results from piloting in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas. The WHO TSE framework emerged from this piloting effort.

The WHO TSE approach has been welcomed by NIP and vaccine development stakeholders as a useful tool to evaluate trade-offs between different products. It was emphasised that the concept of “total systems effectiveness” is likely to be context-specific and that TSE is valuable in facilitating a deliberative process to articulate NIP priorities, for decisions around product choice, and for prioritising the development of future vaccine innovations.

Benchmarking health technology assessment agencies-methodological challenges and recommendations

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to establish a benchmarking tool to collect metrics to enable increased clarity regarding the differences and similarities across health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, to assess performance within and across HTA agencies, identify areas in the HTA processes in which time is spent and to enable ongoing performance improvement.

METHODS

Common steps and milestones in the HTA process were identified for meaningful benchmarking among agencies. A benchmarking tool consisting of eighty-six questions providing information on HTA agency organizational aspects and information on individual new medicine review timelines and outcomes was developed with the input of HTA agencies and validated in a pilot study. Data on 109 HTA reviews from five HTA agencies were analyzed to demonstrate the utility of this tool.

RESULTS

This study developed an HTA benchmarking methodology, comparative metrics showed considerable differences among the median timelines from assessment and appraisal to final HTA recommendation for the five agencies included in this analysis; these results were interpreted in conjunction with agency characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to find consensus among HTA agencies regarding the common milestones of the review process to map jurisdiction-specific processes against agreed metrics. Data on characteristics of agencies such as their scope and remit enabled results to be interpreted in the appropriate local context. This benchmarking tool has promising potential utility to improve the transparency of the review process and to facilitate both quality assurance and performance improvement in HTA agencies.

Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions

Major technical challenges often prevent developers from producing new point-of-care technologies that deliver the required clinical performance in the intended settings of use. But even when devices meet clinical requirements, they can fail to be adopted and successfully implemented. Adoption barriers occur when decision makers do not understand the "value proposition" of new technologies. Current discussions of value in the context of point-of-care testing focus predominantly on the intended use and performance of the device from the manufacturer's point-of-view. However, the perspective of potential adopters in determining whether new devices provide value is also important, as is the opinion of all stakeholders who will be impacted. Incorporating value concepts into decisions made across the full development-to-adoption continuum can increase the likelihood that point-of-care testing will have the desired impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes. This article discusses how various approaches to technology development impact adoption and compares the characteristics of these approaches to emerging value concepts. It also provides an overview of value initiatives and tools that are being developed to support the evaluation of value propositions. These are presented for a range of technology adoption decision contexts, with particular applicability to point-of-care testing. Expanding the focus of research to address gaps in both the creation and evaluation of value propositions is imperative in order for value concepts to positively influence the adoption of point-of-care testing.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.

Addressing the challenges of implementing a Health Technology Assessment Policy Framework in South Africa

OBJECTIVE

South Africa's commitment to progressively achieve universal health coverage can lead to the effective and appropriate use of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to strengthen the healthcare system. The study aimed to analyze the challenges faced in the formal implementation and utilization of HTA in the public health sector.

METHODS

Review and analysis of health technology policies and legislation introduced in South Africa since 1965 serves as the backbone of this study. Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle framework and Kingdon's model were used for data analysis. In addition, a semi-structured survey was conducted among key stakeholders, including those attending HTA workshops that were held in 2016 and 2017.

RESULTS

The document review identified appropriate legislative and policy framework for informing healthcare decisions. Survey participants (n = 55) reported limited political support, local capacity, and awareness of HTA as barriers to implementing HTA. They noted that adequate financial resources and availability and sharing of quality data are primary drivers for HTA development. Effective governance, collaboration, and cooperation between key stakeholders of the healthcare system were suggested as possible ways forward for the institutionalization of HTA.

CONCLUSION

The South African government's goal to introduce the national health insurance program provides an excellent opportunity to formally introduce the use of HTA in decision making. Individual capacity development supported by institutional and organizational environments is urgently needed to achieve its full potential.

Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment

Deliberative processes are a well-established part of health technology assessment (HTA) programs in a number of high- and middle-income countries, and serve to combine complex sets of evidence, perspectives, and values to support open, transparent, and accountable decision making. Nevertheless, there is little documentation and research to inform the development of effective and efficient deliberative processes, and to evaluate their quality. This article summarizes the 2020 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussion on deliberative processes in HTA.Through a combination of small and large group discussion and successive rounds of polling, the GPF members reached strong agreement on three core principles for deliberative processes in HTA: transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality. In addition, discussions revealed other important principles, such as respect, reviewability, consistency, and reasonableness, that may supplement the core set. A number of associated supporting actions for each of the principles are also described in order to make each principle realizable in a given HTA setting. The relative importance of the principles and actions are context-sensitive and must be considered in light of the political, legislative, and operational factors that may influence the functioning of any particular HTA environment within which the deliberative process is situated. The paper ends with suggested concrete next steps that HTA agencies, researchers, and stakeholders might take to move the field forward. The proposed principles and actions, and the next steps, provide a springboard for further research and better documentation of important aspects of deliberation that have historically been infrequently studied.

Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes toward more legitimate decision making. A survey among members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) showed that EDPs can also be relevant for countries that have not (yet) established such an agency. Therefore, we explored to what extent low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) applied the steps and elements stipulated in the EDP framework and their need for guidance.

METHODS

The survey among INAHTA members was slightly adapted to address LMIC context and sent to 416 experts identified through several HTA sources. The questions focused on contextual factors and the EDP steps (installation of an appraisal committee, selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, communication and appeal). Data collection took place between 21 May and 1 September 2019. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to summarize the findings.

RESULTS

We received sixty-six meaningful responses from experts in thirty-two LMIC. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development are overall not present or only present to some extent. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, as well as communication and appeal.

CONCLUSIONS

EDPs have the potential to provide steps for improving HTA processes. The results of this study can serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation of EDP application in the responding LMIC. This could support the countries in improving their processes and enhancing legitimate decision making when using HTA.

The transferability of health technology assessment: the European perspective with focus on central and Eastern European countries

INTRODUCTION

Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries.

AREAS COVERED

Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues.

EXPERT OPINION

Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

Peer Review and Transparency in Evidence-Source Selection in Value and Health Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Value and health technology assessment (V/HTA) is often used in clinical, access, and reimbursement decisions. V/HTA data-source selection may not be transparent, which is a necessary element for stakeholder understanding and trust and for fostering accountability among decision makers. Peer review is considered one mechanism for judging data trustworthiness. Our objective was (1) to use publicly available documentation of V/HTA methods to identify requirements for inclusion of peer-reviewed evidence sources, (2) to compare and contrast US and non-US approaches, and (3) to assess evidence sources used in published V/HTA reports.

METHODS

Publicly available methods documentation from 11 V/HTA organizations in North America and Europe were manually searched and abstracted for descriptions of requirements and recommendations regarding search strategy and evidence-source selection. The bibliographies of a subset of V/HTA reports published in 2018 were manually abstracted for evidence-source types used in each.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity in evidence-source retrieval and selection was observed across all V/HTA organizations, with more pronounced differences between US and non-US organizations. Not all documentation of organizations' methods address the evidence-source selection processes (7 of 11), and few explicitly reference peer-reviewed sources (3 of 11). Documentation of the evidence-source selection strategy was inconsistent across reports (6 of 13), and the level of detail provided varied across organizations. Some information on evidence-source selection was often included in confidential documentation and was not publicly available.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities exist among V/HTA organizations in requirements and guidance regarding evidence-source selection. Standardization of evidence-source selection strategies and documentation could help improve V/HTA transparency and has implications for decision making based on report findings.

Research and Policy Impact of Trials Published by the UK National Institute of Health Research (2006-2015)

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment aims to inform and support healthcare decision making, and trials are part of that process. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of a sample of trials in a meaningful but robust fashion.

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials funded and published by the UK National Institute of Health Research in the Health Technology Assessment journal series and other peer-reviewed journals were identified for 2006 to 2015. Citation analysis was performed for all trials, and quantitative content analysis was undertaken on a purposive sample to determine whether impact could be categorized as "instrumental" (ie, having a clear influence on key research and policy publications).

RESULTS

The search identified 133 relevant trials. The citation rate per trial was 102.97. Of the 133 trials, 129 (98%) were cited in 1 or more systematic reviews or meta-analyses (mean per trial = 7.18, range = 0-44). Where they were cited, the trials were used in some form of synthesis 63% of the time. Ninety-one of the 133 (68%) trials were found to be cited in 1 or more guidance or policy document (mean per trial = 2.75, range = 0-26) and had an instrumental influence 41% of the time. The publication of these trials' results in journals other than the Health Technology Assessment journal appears to enhance the discoverability of the trial data. Altmetric.com proved to be very useful in identifying unique policy and guidance documents.

CONCLUSION

These trials have impressive citation rates, and a sizeable proportion are certainly being used in key publications in a genuinely instrumental manner.

The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration

Background

An international joint task group co-led by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) has developed a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA.

Methods

The task group, consisting of representatives of leading HTA networks, societies and global organizations, developed guiding principles for the process and followed an established consultation plan with the broader HTA community to develop the definition.

Results

The consensus achieved by the international joint task group brings the collective weight of the participating networks, societies, and organizations behind the new definition.

Conclusion

The new definition of HTA is an historic achievement and it is offered to the current and emerging HTA world as a cornerstone reference for today and into the future.

Advanced therapy medicinal products: value judgement and ethical evaluation in health technology assessment

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a heterogeneous class of medicinal products that by offering the potential of cure represent a paradigm shift in the approach of many life-threatening diseases. Although a common regulatory framework for ATMPs has been established in the EU, the health technology assessment (HTA) and financing decisions remain local. The aim of this article is to present an integrated analysis of the current status of the value judgment of ATMPs and the integration of ethical evaluation in the HTA process. It has been identified that approaching the specificities of ATMPs in terms of market access will require a broadening of the definition of value to be able to systematically capture elements of value not traditionally considered. Outcomes modelling will play an important role in the pricing and reimbursement of ATMPs, providing a way to bridge the gap caused by the absence of data from clinical studies or real-world data. Given the nature and disruptive consequences of ATMPs the assessment and adoption of these medicinal products raises important ethical questions, both at a policy and at society level that should be properly addressed. HTA can be made more transparent and reliable, and simultaneously promote robust and accountable decision making, by turning explicit the value judgments implicit in HTA. Ultimately, there should be no core conflict between ethical requirements and HTA in a scenario where the goal is to promote equity and access of patients to truly innovative therapies such as ATMPs, while assuring the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Health technology assessment in Japan: a work in progress

Background: In Japan, pharmacoeconomic requirements for list-price adjustment were institutionalized in April 2019 following provisional implementation of a new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program 2016-2019. Since April 2019, submission of cost-effectiveness evidence to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council (Chuikyo) as part of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare has been mandatory for selected pharmaceuticals and medical devices.Methods: Based on a review of publications and commentaries since April 2019, together with views from a group of experts on key issues to be addressed, this report provides an update on recent HTA developments and key challenges still to be addressed.Results and Discussion: Japan's new HTA program is a first step toward development of a universal healthcare system that can be sustainable for many years into the future. Currently, Japan's HTA program requires provision of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as evidence, with quality-adjusted life years as the preferred outcome measure. Prices can be adjusted both upward and downward according to the degree of the ICER estimate. Japan is the first country to have adopted an algorithmic method for "ICER-based" pricing; however, HTA measures that extend beyond a single ICER estimate are needed to take full advantage of HTA in the future. In particular, generation of evidence of value should support changes to the healthcare system so that incentives for innovation are not diminished while industry and government are not overburdened by the generation or assessment of evidence. There is a need to ensure scientifically sound HTA expertise across all sectors in Japan, and therefore enhancement of HTA literacy and capability among healthcare professionals, academia, government, and industry should be a priority.

Burning Issues in Health Technology Assessment and Policy Making: What's Keeping Senior Health Technology Assessment Users and Producers up at Night?

A key working session, held as part of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Global Policy Forum meeting asks members to share “What's Keeping Me Up At Night.” Members—senior thought leaders from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, payer organizations, industry, and the HTAi Board—share without fear or favor the thorny issues related to HTA that are challenging them now or likely to do so in the near future. This article contains a reflection on the discussions at this session over the last 2 years and focuses on the recurrent and repeated themes: internal and external stakeholder involvement in HTA processes; globalization of HTA and the future of HTA (namely innovative technologies, tide of data and the “war for talent”). While the aim of these informal sessions is not to produce solutions, it reinforces the importance of developing a truly multi-stakeholder HTA community with working relationships built on mutual trust and long-standing engagement.

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status

Introduction

Implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) is still in an early stage with some heterogeneity in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Our objective was to assess the current and future status of HTA implementation in the MENA region by focusing on regional commonalities.

Methods

Preparatory discussions for the first ISPOR conference in the MENA region indicated some potentially generalizable trends of HTA roadmaps. To widen the perspective, a policy survey was conducted among conference participants by applying an HTA implementation scorecard. Discussion group members helped to validate key conclusions during and after the conference.

Results

Health policy experts in MENA countries would like to facilitate HTA implementation and expect significant changes with some generalizable directions in 10 years compared to the current status according. HTA capacity building has to be strengthened by more graduate and postgraduate programs. Increased public budget and enhanced institutionalization are necessary success factors of HTA implementation. The scope of HTA has to be extended from pharmaceuticals to non-pharmaceutical technologies and to revision of previous policy decisions. Although cost-effectiveness with explicit threshold remains the most preferred HTA criterion, several other criteria have to be considered, maybe even by applying an explicit MCDA framework. The role of local evidence and data has to be strengthened in MENA countries, which translates to the extended use of local patient registries and payers' databases. Duplication of efforts can be reduced if international collaboration is integrated into national HTA implementation.

Discussion

Our results should be viewed as an initial step in a multi-stakeholder dialogue on HTA implementation. Each MENA country should develop its context-specific HTA roadmap, as such roadmaps are not transferable without taking into account country size, economic status, public health priorities and adopted systems of health care financing.

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting ‘value for money’ analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an ‘ill-informed’ decision based on ‘poor’ or ‘inaccurate’ information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.

Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.

Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.

Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

Defining capacity building in the context of HTA: a proposal by the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee

Objectives

To develop a definition of “capacity building” relevant to Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi).

Methods

A review of capacity building activities undertaken by HTAi members, members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and regional HTA networks was compared against general literature on capacity building definitions and frameworks. The findings were reviewed by the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee. Furthermore, the Executive Committee and Interest Groups of HTAi provided input on the draft final paper.

Results

The literature demonstrated the need for a definition of capacity building specific to HTA. In the context of HTAi, it was necessary for the definition to cover (i) the broadest range of HTA-related activities, (ii) multiple stakeholders involved in the HTA process, and (iii) the spectrum of activities that compose capacity building. We propose the following definition of HTA capacity building: The process by which individuals and organizations develop or strengthen abilities related to understanding, providing input to, conducting, or utilizing HTA for health policy and decision making, as well as, developing awareness and support in the environment within which HTA is being used.

Conclusion

A definition of HTA-related capacity building that was intended to provide clarity about what this term means to HTAi was developed. As HTA is context-dependent, a need for further work to develop an operationalization “menu” relevant to the specific needs in which HTA is being used was identified.

How Changes in Reimbursement Practices Influence the Financial Sustainability of Medicine Policy: Lessons Learned from Slovakia

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the impact of new reimbursement requirements for medicines in the Slovak Republic based on legislation that came into force in January 2018. Methods: The new legislation was reviewed. The reimbursement dossiers for medicines and health technology assessments and appraisals, justifications for reimbursement decisions, final reimbursement decisions, and all aspects of the appeal mechanisms have been transparently published on the website of the Slovak Ministry of Health and were used for this analysis. Results: Based on the new legislation, there was no need to submit information about relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medicines with less than 1:50,000 eligible patients prior to reimbursement decisions, and the cost-effectiveness threshold has been increased for all other medicines. The estimated impact of the 2-year budget for the 59 medicines submitted for reimbursement without relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis was €181,273,698, based on the published submission dossiers. The estimated impact of the 2-year budget for the 45 medicines with evidence of relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was €178,566,634. In contrast to the easier market access criteria for new original medicines, the new legislation enforces stricter price erosion criteria for generic and biosimilar medicines. Consequently, the number of generic and biosimilar entries was reduced from 242 in 2017 to 224 in 2018. Conclusions: Although some of the new reimbursement applications were not approved by the Ministry of Health, many new medicines were added to the Slovak pharmaceutical reimbursement list based on "balanced assessment" requirements; hence, the system became financially unsustainable. It was necessary to change the legislation from January 2019.

The South African Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Submissions' Evidence Requirements Compared with Other African Countries and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England

Objectives: The South African Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Submissions (SAGPS) were compared with other African pharmacoeconomic guidelines and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Methods Guide (NICE MG) to make recommendations for evidence generation and further development thereof.Methods: The European Network for HTA Core Model (version 3.0) (the Model) provided the comparative framework, using three criteria: completely, partly, or not completely requiring the same/similar information.Results: Of 45 African countries reviewed, only Egypt had a publicly accessible pharmacoeconomic guideline (EPG). The guidelines were different in respect to their intended audience, size, and content but for all the main focus are the economic evaluation, and health problem and current treatment domains. The SAGPS and EPG had few requirements for a medicine's safety, organizational, ethical, and legal aspects. The SAGPS completely or partly required the same/similar information as the Model for 41.2% of total issues, the EPG 33.3%, and the NICE MG 63.2%.Conclusions: The SAGPS was similar to the EPG, but not as comprehensive as the NICE MG and could be strengthened for decision-making and priority setting. Evidence generation should focus on describing the medicine's targeted disease and current treatment options, and associated cost and outcomes data.

Addressing Health System Values in Health Technology Assessment: The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly used around the globe to inform resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, the importance of using explicit and transparent criteria for coverage decision making in line with health system values has been acknowledged. However, the values of a health system are often not explicitly taken into account in the HTA process. This situation influences the allocation of scarce resources and could lead to a discord between the HTA outcome and the values of the health system. We describe how evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) can help to improve this situation. EDPs are integrating two theoretical frameworks; multi-criteria decision-analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Through the use of EDPs, HTA agencies can ensure that health system values are more explicitly and consistently taken into account in the HTA process, enhancing the legitimacy of coverage decisions.