Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions

'It Felt Like Finding Hope Only to Lose It Again': A Grounded Theory Study of Rare Cancer Policies in Bulgaria

Rare cancers, defined by an annual incidence of fewer than 6 per 100,000 cases, pose significant challenges due to their complexity, lack of expertise, and limited treatment options. In Bulgaria, these challenges are compounded by limited resources, fragmented care, and outdated policies. This study investigates policy stakeholder perspectives to identify gaps and propose policy alternatives for rare cancer care in Bulgaria, with implications for the broader European Union (EU) context. A grounded theory qualitative research design was employed to explore stakeholder insights. Eight key stakeholders, including policymakers, healthcare providers, patient advocates, and pharmaceutical representatives, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed through thematic coding to map policy gaps and develop viable alternatives. Stakeholders highlighted significant gaps in funding, access to innovative therapies, and care organization. Four policy approaches emerged: Liberal, advocating for inclusivity and decentralized care; Conservative, emphasizing cost control and centralization; Balanced, integrating elements of both; and Status Quo, retaining the current system. While centered on Bulgaria, these findings address universal challenges in rare cancer care, offering a framework adaptable to other EU countries. Adopting tailored policies can reduce disparities, improve patient outcomes, and align national strategies with EU objectives, particularly under Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission.

The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada

BACKGROUND

Innovative health technologies have increasingly emerged as a promising solution for patients with untreatable or challenging conditions. However, these technologies often come with expensive costs and limited evidence at the time of launch. This study assessed how these high-priced drugs with limited evidence were appraised and introduced in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada, where cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) generally plays a central role in pricing and reimbursement decisions.

METHODS

The study analysed 22 high-priced drugs (24 indications) introduced in South Korea, which were granted CEA waivers due to difficulties in evidence generation and high unmet needs. Data, including funding arrangements and evidence assessed, were derived from national health technology assessment (HTA) documents and other public domains in the four countries.

RESULTS

Nearly all drugs received positive recommendations, largely through managed entry agreements (MEAs), particularly in England. Single-arm trials were more common in South Korea and England. Indirect comparison was the primary source of comparative effectiveness in England (70.0%), emphasising alignment with current practices. Australia and Canada utilised both indirect comparison and head-to-head trial data in similar proportions. Except for South Korea, all countries still required CEA data for these drugs. Data collection for coverage with evidence development was necessary in 55.0% of cases in England, and less in other countries.

CONCLUSION

HTA agencies increasingly accept the uncertainty of high-priced drugs with high unmet needs through MEAs. To ensure timely access and value for money, implementing full value assessment and uncertainty management, while strengthening national and international collaboration for effective data collection, is imperative.

Use of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to guide HTA recommendations on coverage and reimbursement for cancer medicines: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Recommendations by countries' health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are used to decide which new therapies warrant the allocation of limited health-care resources to make them available through publicly funded health systems. This process is of public health importance for balancing the dual aims of optimising patient outcomes while ensuring financial sustainability. We evaluated which factors affect HTA outcomes and the time to positive HTA outcome, focussing on the role of clinical benefit evaluated with the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, data were extracted from publicly available HTA reports and related sources from six country settings and their respective HTA agencies (Australia, Canada, England, France, the Canadian province of Quebec, and Scotland). We evaluated new cancer medicines for treating solid tumours in a non-curative setting with published ESMO-MCBS scores and that had been assessed by at least three HTA agencies between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2020. Using ESMO-MCBS score as an independent variable, we did descriptive and multivariable regression analyses to evaluate: (1) factors associated with the time between marketing authorisation and positive (unrestricted [List] and restricted [List with Constraints]) HTA outcome; and (2) factors associated with HTA outcomes.

FINDINGS

67 medicine-indication pairs used in non-curative settings were identified, totalling 360 HTA submissions (medicine-indication-country triplets) reviewed by the six HTA agencies. Factors significantly associated with a reduced interval between marketing authorisation and a positive (unrestricted or restricted) HTA outcome included a high ESMO-MCBS score (ie, 4 or 5, vs a low or average score of 1-3; hazard ratio [HR] per 1 month increment 1·42 [95% CI 1·11-1·81], p=0·0055), parallel review (vs standard marketing authorisation process; HR 1·69 [1·13-2·54], p=0·011), having a risk-sharing agreement or special funding arrangements (vs no funding agreement, HR 4·62 [95% CI 2·51-8·51], p<0·0001, and HR 4·16 [2·03-8·50], p=0·0001, respectively), and assessment by particular HTA agencies (pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review vs National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], HR 2·82 [1·68-4·75], p=0·0001; and Haute Autorité de Santé vs NICE, HR 5·70 [2·87-11·33], p<0·0001). Accelerated marketing authorisation was significantly associated with a longer time to positive HTA outcome (vs standard authorisation process; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·51-0·95], p=0·024). Positive HTA outcomes (both unrestricted and restricted) were significantly associated with a high ESMO-MCBS score (vs low or average ESMO-MCBS score; relative risk ratio [RRR] 14·10 [95% CI 3·54-56·20], p=0·0002, and RRR 4·52 [1·90-10·75], p=0·0006, respectively) and acknowledgment of unmet medical need (vs unmet need not recorded, RRR 22·73 [5·51-93·73], p<0·0001, and RRR 1·87 [1·18-2·97], p=0·0075, respectively). By contrast, positive HTA outcomes (unrestricted and restricted) were inversely associated with uncertainties regarding inputs to economic models informing HTA submissions (vs uncertainties not recorded, RRR 0·28 [0·10-0·78], p=0·014, and RRR 0·45 [0·25-0·82], p=0·010, respectively). Regarding country-relevant effects, inverse associations with positive HTA outcomes (both unrestricted and restricted) were observed for assessment in Quebec (vs England; RRR 1·15×10-6 [1·44×10-7-9·09×10-6], p<0·0001, and RRR 0·33 (0·24-0·46), p<0·0001, respectively) and for assessment in Australia (vs England; RRR 1·78×10-6 [1·04×10-8-3·00×10-4], p<0·0001, and RRR 0·30 [0·15-0·61], p=0·0008, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Several factors informed HTA outcomes for new cancer medicines. A high ESMO-MCBS score, defined as indicating substantial clinical benefit, increased the likelihood of a positive HTA outcome and shortened the interval between marketing authorisation and HTA outcome, and this association was not affected by other variables. Additional factors informing HTA outcomes include evidence uncertainties and unmet medical need. Country-relevant differences exist in the time-to-HTA outcome and the propensity of some countries to achieve positive (restricted or unrestricted) outcomes compared with others.

FUNDING

None.

Navigating the path towards successful implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: key takeaways from the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy

BACKGROUND

The European Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA R), effective since January 2022, aims to harmonize and improve the efficiency of common HTA across Member States (MS), with a phased implementation from January 2025. At "midterms" of the preparation phase for the implementation of the Regulation our aim was to identify and prioritize tangible action points to move forward.

METHODS

During the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), participants from different nationalities and stakeholder backgrounds discussed readiness and remaining challenges for the Regulation's implementation and identified and prioritized action points. For this purpose, participants were assigned to four working groups: (i) Health Policy Challenges, (ii) Stakeholder Readiness, (iii) Approach to Uncertainty and (iv) Challenges regarding Methodology. Top four action points for each working group were identified and subsequently ranked by all participants during the final plenary session.

RESULTS

Overall "readiness" for the Regulation was perceived as neutral. Prioritized action points included the following: Health Policy, i.e. assess adjustability of MS laws and health policy processes; Stakeholders, i.e. capacity building; Uncertainty, i.e. implement HTA guidelines as living documents; Methodology, i.e. clarify the Population, Intervention, Comparator(s), Outcomes (PICO) identification process.

CONCLUSIONS

At "midterms" of the preparation phase, the focus for the months to come is on executing the tangible action points identified at EAA's Spring Convention. All action points centre around three overarching themes: harmonization and standardization, capacity building and collaboration, uncertainty management and robust data. These themes will ultimately determine the success of the EU HTA R in the long run.

Availability and Access to Orphan Drugs for Rare Cancers in Bulgaria: Analysis of Delays and Public Expenditures

Rare cancers are defined by an annual incidence of fewer than 6 per 100,000. Bearing similarities to rare diseases, they are associated with substantial health inequalities due to diagnostic complexity and delayed access to innovative therapies. This situation is further aggravated in Southeastern European countries like Bulgaria, where limited public resources and expertise underscore the need for additional policy and translational research on rare cancers. This study aimed to explore the availability and access to orphan drugs for rare cancers in Bulgaria for the period of 2020-2023. We cross-compared data from both the European Union and national public sources to evaluate the number of available and accessible orphan drugs for rare cancers, the delay from market authorization to reimbursement, the dynamics of public expenditures, and regional disparities in access across the country. We juxtaposed the main characteristics of oncological and non-oncological orphan drugs as well. Only 15 out of 50 oncological orphan drugs that were authorized by the European Medicine Agency were accessible for rare cancer patients in Bulgaria. The median delay between market authorization and inclusion in the Bulgarian Positive Drug List was 760 days. The total expenditures for all orphan drugs for rare cancers amounted to EUR 74,353,493 from 2020 to 2023. The budgetary impact of this group rose from 0.24% to 3.77% of total public medicinal product expenditures for the study period. Rare cancer patients represent a vulnerable population that often faces limited to no access to treatment. We call for targeted European and national policies to address this major inequality.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

OBJECTIVES

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA).

METHODS

A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value.

RESULTS

189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Health Technology Assessment-Informed Decision Making by the Federal Joint Committee/Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England: The Role of Budget Impact

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test (official) evaluation criteria including the potential role of budget impact (BI) on health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes published by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss [GBA]) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from all publicly available GBA decisions and IQWiG assessments as well as NICE single technology appraisals between January 2011 and June 2018, and information with regard to evaluation criteria used by these agencies was collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to estimate the effect of the BI on the HTA outcomes while controlling for criteria used by GBA/IQWiG and NICE.

RESULTS

NICE recommendations are largely driven by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and, if applicable, by end-of-life criteria (P < .01). While IQWiG assessments are significantly affected by the availability of randomized controlled trials and patient-relevant endpoints (P < .01), GBA appraisals primarily focus on endpoints (P < .01). The BI correlated with NICE single technology appraisals (inverted-U relationship, P < .1) and IQWiG recommendations (increasing linear relationship, P < .05), but not with GBA decisions (P > .1). Nevertheless, given that IQWiG assessments seem to be more rigorous than GBA appraisals regarding the consideration of evidence-based evaluation criteria, decisions by GBA might be negatively associated with the BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reveal that GBA/IQWiG and NICE follow their official evaluation criteria consistently. After controlling for all significant variables, the BI seems to have an (independent) effect on HTA outcomes as well.

Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries

CONTEXT

Positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes can have important implications for equity, efficiency and timely patient access to novel therapies. Several outcomes and dimensions of benefit beyond utility feed into HTA processes.

OBJECTIVE

We analyse a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in 7 countries, to (a) test whether HTA decision-making is grounded in welfarist or extra-welfarist approaches; and (b) empirically determine the factors associated with positive HTA outcomes, the time to achieve these and establish the magnitude of inter-country differences in assessment processes.

METHODS

Data were extracted from publicly available HTA reports on drugs that received marketing authorisation between 2009 and 2018 (N = 1415). The outcomes of interest were the probability of positive HTA outcomes and the time-to-HTA outcome; these were examined with respect to clinical, regulatory, product- and disease-related, evidence uncertainty and contextual variables. Econometric models utilising survival analysis and multinomial logistic regression were specified.

FINDINGS

Positive HTA outcomes accounted for 87.3% of the sample (n = 1235), of which 71% (n = 1004) were restricted. Drugs with positive HTA outcomes were subject to clinical restrictions (n = 652, 46%), financial risk-sharing (n = 439, 31%) or had been rejected at least once (n = 282, 20%). Significant predictors of positive HTA outcomes were orphan drugs with cancer indications, high quality of evidence linked to clinical and economic evidence uncertainties which had been overcome, and contextual considerations, particularly innovativeness and unmet need. Comparative analyses revealed systematic differences between countries in their propensity to accept the same drugs, particularly oncology and orphan drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are contextual and reinforce arguments in favour of explicitly accounting for social value judgements, establishing separate assessment frameworks for highly uncertain products, adopting risk mitigation strategies for novel therapies with early phase evidence, and sharing of HTA practices across settings. Lastly, HTA agencies have adopted an extra-welfarist approach to value assessment and resource allocation.

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars.

RESULTS

Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

Health technology assessment for cancer medicines across the G7 countries and Oceania: an international, cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Criticisms have emerged that cancer medicines offer modest benefits at increasingly high prices. Reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have become a complex endeavour for cancer medicines. Most high-income countries (HICs) use HTA criteria to identify high-value medicines for reimbursement under public drug coverage plans. We compared HTA criteria specific for cancer medicines in economically similar HICs, to understand how these criteria contribute to reimbursement decisions.

METHODS

We did an international, cross-sectional analysis in collaboration with author investigators across eight HICs, from the Group of Seven (known as G7; Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Publicly available data from HTA agency reports and official documentation were extracted and analysed between Aug 15, 2021, and July 31, 2022. We collected data pertaining to the decision-making criteria used by the national HTA agency; HTA reimbursement status for 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to 15 unique US top-selling cancer medicines; and HTA reimbursement status for 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs (13 unique medicines) with minimal clinical benefit (score of 1 on the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). Descriptive statistics were used to compare HTA decision criteria and drug reimbursement recommendations (or for Germany and Japan, final reimbursement status) across the eight countries.

FINDINGS

Therapeutic impact related to clinical outcomes of the new medicine was a uniform criterion across the eight countries, whereas quality of evidence (under the remit of therapeutic impact assessment) and equity were infrequently cited criteria. Only the German HTA agency mandated that surrogate endpoints be validated in therapeutic impact assessment. All countries except Germany included formal cost-effectiveness analyses within HTA reports. England and Japan were the only countries that specified a cost-effectiveness threshold. Of the 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to US top-selling cancer medicines, Germany reimbursed the maximum (34 [100%]), followed by Italy (32 [94%] recommended for reimbursement), Japan (28 [82%] reimbursed), Australia, Canada, England, and France (27 [79%] recommended for reimbursement), and New Zealand (12 [35%] recommended for reimbursement). Of the 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs with marginal clinical benefit, Germany reimbursed 15 (83%) and Japan reimbursed 12 (67%). France recommended nine (50%) for reimbursement, followed by Italy (seven [39%]), Canada (five [28%]), and Australia and England (three [17%] each). New Zealand did not recommend any medicine-indications with marginal clinical benefit for reimbursement. Considering the overall cumulative proportion across the eight countries, 58 (21%) of 272 indications for the US top-selling medicines and 90 (63%) of 144 marginally beneficial medicine-indications were not recommended for reimbursement or reimbursed.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate discordance in public reimbursement decisions across economically similar countries, despite overlapping HTA decision criteria. This suggests a need for improved transparency around the nuances of the criteria to ensure improved access to high-value cancer medicines, and deprioritisation of low-value cancer medicines. Health systems have opportunities to improve their HTA decision-making processes by learning from the systems in other countries.

FUNDING

None.

The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

In this article, we focus on the reimbursement process, and as an example, characterize the time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of metastatic NSCLC from publicly available websites, in three different healthcare systems: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, and the National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel, all who have publicly funded health systems which include drug coverage. Our study found that there are substantial differences in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for the same conditions in different countries, with NICE and The National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel approving one condition at the same time, Israel approving two conditions earlier than NICE, and PBAC lagging behind for every condition. These differences could be due to the differences in health policy systems and the many factors that affect reimbursement. Comparing the reimbursement process between different countries can highlight the challenges facing their health systems in early adoption of new treatments.

Challenges and Opportunities for Companies to Build HTA/Payer Perspectives Into Drug Development Through the Use of a Dynamic Target Product Profile

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development.

Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies’ strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies.

Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP.

Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan.

Influencing Factors of Health Technology Assessment to Orphan Drugs: Empirical Evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia

This study summarizes the intrinsic criteria for the recommendation of orphan drugs in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia with the aim of understanding the rationale for the variability in decision-making and to provide a reference for the establishment of criteria in the process of access to health insurance for orphan drugs in different countries and the construction of national uniform criteria. A comparative analysis of 60 health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines of 15 drug-indication pairs appraised by four countries (England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia) from 2017 to 2018 was done, including an in-depth analysis of a case study. Agreement levels were measured using kappa scores. Associations were explored through correspondence analysis. The four countries possess some homogeneity in the assessment, but each has its own preferences. Poor agreement exists between England, Scotland, and Canada (−0.41 &lt; kappa score &lt; 0.192). In the correspondence analysis, England placed more emphasis on treatment methods in terms of control type when making recommendations. Canada and Scotland focused more on trial type with Canada placing more emphasis on phase III and open-label trials and on cost-utility analysis, while Australia was less studied in terms of economic models. Different countries have different goals when establishing HTA decisions for orphan drugs due to their different degrees of orphan drug coverage. Different countries should not only combine their unique values of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness in the assessment of orphan drugs but also give different weights during the HTA process, after considering account the development of the country itself.

Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions

Background

Health care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement at a national level. The coverage decision report, i.e., the publicly available document giving reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decisions.

Methods

This study describes a model for combining different elements in coverage decisions. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n = 2, with field notes taken) and the corresponding audio files (n = 3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n = 10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n = 5 in three interviews), and relevant documents (n = 4).

Results

We conceptualise decisions as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision.

Conclusions

Based on the proposed model, we suggest actively identifying a wider variety of elements and stepping up in terms of engaging patients and the public, including facilitating appeals. Future research could explore how different actors perceive the robustness of decisions and how this relates to their perceived legitimacy.

Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries

Health technology assessment (HTA) systems across countries vary in the way they are set up, according to their role and based on how funding decisions are reached. Our objective was to study the characteristics of these systems and their likely impact on the funding of technologies undergoing HTA. Based on a literature review, we created a conceptual framework that captures key operating features of HTA systems. We used this framework to map current HTA activities across 32 countries in the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia. Evidence was collected through a systematic search of competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Primary data collection through expert consultation validated our findings and further complemented the analysis. Sixty-three HTA bodies were identified. Most have a national scope (76%), are independent (73%), have an advisory role (52%), evaluate pharmaceuticals predominantly or exclusively (76%), assess health technologies based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness (73%) and involve various stakeholders as members of the HTA committee (94%) and/or through external consultation (76%). The majority of HTA outcomes are not legally binding (81%). Although all study countries implement HTA, the way it fits into decision-making, negotiation processes, and coverage and funding decisions differs significantly across countries. HTA is a dynamic and transformative process and there is a need for transparency to investigate whether evidence-based information influences coverage decisions.

Health technology assessment processes: a North-South comparison of the evaluation and recommendation of health technologies in Canada and Chile

Purpose

Health systems are progressively stressed by health spending, which is partially explained by the increase in the cost of health technologies. Countries have defined processes to prioritize interventions to be covered. This study aims to compare for the first time health technology assessment (HTA) processes in Canada and Chile, to explain the factors driving these decisions.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a health policy analysis comparing HTA processes in Canada and Chile. An analysis of publicly available documents in Canada (for CADTH) and Chile (for the Ministry of Health (MoH)) was carried out. A recognized political science framework (the 3-I framework) was used to explain the similarities and differences in both countries. The comparison of processes was disaggregated into eligibility and evaluation processes.

Findings

CADTH has different programmes for different types of drugs (with two separate expert committees), whereas the MoH has a unified process. Although CADTH’s recommendations have a federal scope, the final coverage is a provincial decision. In Chile, the recommendation has a national scope. In both cases, past recommendations influence the scope of the evaluation. Pharmaceutical companies and patient associations are important interest groups in both countries. Whereas manufacturers and tumour groups are able to submit applications to CADTH, the Chilean MoH prioritizes applications submitted by patient associations.

Originality/value

Institutions, interests and ideas play important roles in driving HTA decisions in Canada and Chile, which is demonstrated in this novel analysis. This paper provides a unique comparison to highly relevant policy processes in HTA, which is often a research area dominated by effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies.

Non-Price-Related Determinants of Value and Access for Novel Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Country Review of HTA Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

Access and funding for newly approved treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often dependent on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) involving cost-effectiveness analysis. Whilst methods used by HTA agencies share many similarities, final decisions may differ. This may be the result, not just of price considerations, but also of variation in value judgements by different agencies. The aim of this study was to review international HTA evaluations to identify determinants of value and access for NSCLC treatments.

METHODS

A targeted review and analysis was undertaken of published HTAs for NSCLC across HTA agencies in six countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Ireland and Scotland). Analysis of extracted data consisted of three stages: descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included 163 HTAs that assessed oncological treatments for NSCLC from 2003 to 2019. The majority of HTA decisions (67.5%) were positive. However, some evidence of heterogeneity in HTA decisions and the factors informing them were identified. The most influential factors included in the multivariate model related to the HTA agency conducting the appraisal, the year of market authorisation, treatment type and the line of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Heterogenous decision-making frameworks can present a challenge to developing HTA submissions. This research contributes to understanding decision-making factors and why countries make different decisions.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Innovative Medicines: The Role of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Managed Entry Agreements in Practice and Policy

Through the years, solutions for accelerated access to innovative treatments are implemented in models of regulatory approvals, yet with limited data. Besides efficacy data, providing adequate safety data is key to transferring conditional marketing authorization to final marketing authorization. However, this remains a challenge because of the restricted availability and transferability of such data. Within this study, we set up a challenge to analyze the answers of two questions. First, from regulatory bodies' point of view, we bring the question of whether multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an adequate tool for further improvement of health technology assessment (HTA) of innovative medicines. Second, we ask if managed entry agreements (MEAs) pose solutions for facilitating the access to innovative medicines and further strengthening the evidence base concerning efficacy and effectiveness, as well as safety. Elaborating on such challenges brought us to conclude that increasing the attention to safety in MCDAs and MEAs will increase the trust of the authorities and improve the access for the manufacturers and the early availability of safe and effective medicines for the patients.

Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies

Differing contexts have greatly influenced HTA development in various countries, with considerable effort recently made by international HTA networks (e.g., EUnetHTA) and the European Union (EU) to make HTA a more coherent, equal, and efficient process. Medical devices (MDs) present particular challenges for HTA because of frequent, rapid innovation, outcomes influenced by end-user competence, dynamic pricing and often low-quality scientific evidence. Our objective is to describe the development, structure and governance of a National HTA Program for MDs (PNHTADM) in Italy, a highly participatory, stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based process to reform a fragmented system of appraisal and approval. Based largely on EUnetHTA methods, the resulting process delineates a standardized system for proposing MDs by any stakeholders, accrediting HTA producers, setting criteria for prioritization and appraisals, and innovatively linking recommendations with coverage, reimbursement and procurement of MDs. Expected benefits include reduced disparities in pricing and reimbursement policies and improved access to new technologies across 21 regional healthcare systems in Italy's decentralized, universal system, complete with provisions to require additional evidence collection and centrally monitor diffusion. Though devised for Italy, the design, resources and underlying analysis provide a framework for other nations seeking to consolidate HTA initiatives, particularly in light of new EU regulation.

Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?

The aim of this paper is to examine generic competition in the UK, with a special focus on the role of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) on generic market entry and diffusion. In the UK, where no direct price regulation on pharmaceuticals exists, HTA has a leading role for recommending the use of medicines providing a non-regulatory aspect that may influence the dynamics in the generic market. The paper focuses on the role of Technology Appraisals issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We follow a two-step approach. First, we examine the probability of generic entry. Second, conditional on generic entry, we examine the determinants of generic market share. We use data from IQVIA British Pharmaceutical Index (BPI) for the primary care market for 60 products that lost patent between 2003 and 2012. Our results suggest that market size remains one of the main drivers of generic entry. After controlling for market size, intermolecular substitution and difficulty of manufacturing increase the likelihood of generic entry. After generic entry, our estimates suggest that generic market share is highly state dependent. Our findings also suggest that while NICE recommendations do influence generic uptake, there is only marginal evidence they affect generic entry.

Companies' Health Technology Assessment Strategies and Practices in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain: An Industry Metrics Study

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) has increased in importance in supporting payer decision making by assessing the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines. Thus, pharmaceutical companies need to address the HTA requirements early during development to improve reimbursement outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of research to assess the impact of HTA on development and jurisdictional outcome from companies’ perspectives. This study aimed to assess companies’ HTA strategy and characterise HTA practice in seven jurisdictions.

Methods: A multi-year, annual study collected information for individual products, focusing on development activities regarding inclusion of HTA requirements and selection of global comparators. The generation of local contextual information, submission strategies and predictability of HTA outcomes was examined jurisdictionally in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The study questionnaire was built into a secure online data collection platform and data were provided annually by participating companies.

Results: Data for 169 compounds were provided by nine international companies between 2014 and 2018. HTA requirements were implemented in evidence generation plan for 63% of products during development. Global comparators were accepted by HTA bodies for more than half of studied products; Spain showed the highest acceptance rate (85%). Companies took advantages of parallel process in Australia and Canada to shorten product rollout time. Australia demonstrated general consistency in HTA review time, and England had the longest variation (interquartile range, 216 days). Requirements for additional information after submission occurred at all HTA bodies. Germany and Italy showed the highest percentage of products being reimbursed as per regulatory label (80 and 68%, respectively). Canada was the most predictable jurisdiction, with the highest proportion of review outcome (90%) that met companies’ expectations.

Conclusion: Companies are addressing HTA requirements during development for many products; however, they are challenged by varying requirements and practices and product success ultimately depends on how HTA organisations and payers assess added value in the context of the national healthcare systems. This ongoing study created a baseline to help capture fact-based changes for company HTA strategies and HTA body practices.

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.

Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe

Background: Across Western Europe, procedures and formalised criteria for taking decisions on the coverage (inclusion in the benefits basket or equivalent) of healthcare technologies vary substantially. In the decision documents, which display the justification of, the rationale for, these decisions, national healthcare institutes may employ ‘contextual factors,’ defined here as situation-specific considerations. Little is known about how the use of such contextual factors compares across countries. We describe and compare contextual factors as used in coverage decisions generally and 4 decision documents specifically in Belgium, England, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Methods: Four group interviews with 3 experts from the national healthcare institute of each country, document and web site analysis, and a workshop with 1 to 2 of these experts per country were followed by the examination of the documents of 4 specific decisions taken in each of the 4 countries, sampled to vary widely in type of technology and decision outcome.

Results: From the available decision documents, we conclude that in every country studied, contextual factors are established ‘around the table,’ ie, in deliberation. All documents examined feature contextual factors, with similar contextual factor patterns leading to similar decisions in different countries. The Dutch decisions employ the widest variety of factors, with the exception of the societal functioning of the patient, which is relatively common in Belgium, England, and Germany. Half of the final decisions were taken in another setting, with the consequence that no documentation was retrievable for 2 decisions.

Conclusion: First, we conclude that in these countries, contextual factors are actively integrated in the decision document, and that this is achieved in deliberation. Conceptualising contextual factors as both situation-specific and actively-integrated affords insight into practices of contextualisation and provides an encouragement for exchange between decision-makers on more qualitative aspects of decisions. Second, the decisions that lacked a publicly accessible justification of the final decision document raised questions on the decisions’ legitimacy. Further research could address patterning of contextual factors, elucidate why some factors may remain implicit, and how decisions without a publicly available decision document may enable or restrain decision-making practice.

ICER Value Framework 2020 Update: Recommendations on the Aggregation of Benefits and Contextual Considerations

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components.

Disagreement on cancer drug decisions in Europe

OBJECTIVES

Despite the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote voluntary cooperation among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, different reimbursement decisions for the same drug are made across European countries. The aim of this paper is to compare the agreement of cancer drug reimbursement decisions using inter-rater reliability measures.

METHODS

This study is based on primary data on 161 cancer drug reimbursement decisions from nine European countries from 2002 to 2014. To achieve our goal, we use two measures to analyze agreement, in other words, congruency: (i) percentage of agreement and (ii) the κ score.

RESULTS

One main conclusion can be drawn from the analysis. There is a weak to medium agreement among cancer drug decisions in the European countries analyzed (based on the percentage of agreement and the κ score). England and Scotland show the highest consistency between the two measures, showing a medium agreement. These results are in line with previous literature on the congruency of HTA decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper contributes to the HTA literature, by highlighting the extent of weak to medium agreement among cancer decisions in Europe.

Assessment of significant benefit for orphan medicinal products by European regulators may support subsequent relative effectiveness assessments by health technology assessment organizations

To maintain orphan drug status at the time of market authorization, orphan medicinal products (OMPs) need to be assessed for all criteria, including significant benefit, by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Subsequently, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations evaluate the same OMPs in their relative effectiveness assessments (REAs). This review investigates the similarities and differences between the two frameworks for six HTA organizations, including the European Network for HTA. We discuss differences between both assessment frameworks within five domains (clinical evidence used, patient population, intervention, comparators, and outcome measures) for all drugs. Five illustrative cases studies were selected for a qualitative review.

The Emerging Social Science Literature on Health Technology Assessment: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Social scientists have paid increasing attention to health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides an overview of existing social scientific literature on HTA, with a focus on sociology and political science and their subfields.

METHODS

Narrative review of key pieces in English.

RESULTS

Three broad themes recur in the emerging social science literature on HTA: the drivers of the establishment and concrete institutional designs of HTA bodies; the effects of institutionalized HTA on pricing and reimbursement systems and the broader society; and the social and political influences on HTA decisions.

CONCLUSION

Social scientists bring a focus on institutions and social actors involved in HTA, using primarily small-N research designs and qualitative methods. They provide valuable critical perspectives on HTA, at times challenging its otherwise unquestioned assumptions. However, they often leave aside questions important to the HTA practitioner community, including the role of culture and values. Closer collaboration could be beneficial to tackle new relevant questions pertaining to HTA.

Differences in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Among European Jurisdictions: The Role of Practice Variations

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an important role in reimbursement decision-making in many countries, but recommendations vary widely throughout jurisdictions, even for the same drug. This variation may be due to differences in the weighing of evidence or differences in the processes or procedures, which are known as HTA practices.

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the effects of differences in practices on interpretation of intercountry differences in HTA recommendations for conditionally approved drugs.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for conditionally approved drugs (N = 27) up until June 2017 from England/Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scotland were included. Recommendations and practice characteristics were extracted from these five jurisdictions and this data was validated. The effect of nonsubmissions, resubmissions, and reassessments; cost-effectiveness assessments; and price negotiations on changes in the percentage of negative recommendations and the interpretation of intercountry differences in HTA outcomes were analyzed using Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The inclusion of cost-effectiveness assessments led to significant increases in the proportion of negative recommendations in England/Wales (from 4% to 50%, P<.01) and Scotland (from 21% to 71%, P<.01). The subsequent inclusion of price negotiations led to significant reductions in the proportion of negative recommendations in England/Wales (from 50% to 14%, P<.01), France (from 31% to 3%, P=.012), and Germany (from 34% to 0%, P<.01). Results indicated that the inclusion of nonsubmissions and resubmissions might affect Scottish negative HTA recommendations (from 7% to 21%), but this effect was not significant. No significant effects were observed in the Netherlands, possibly owing to sample size.

CONCLUSION

Variations in HTA practices between international jurisdictions can have a substantial and significant impact on conclusions about recommendations by HTA bodies, as exemplified in this cohort of conditionally approved products. Studies comparing international HTA recommendations should carefully consider possible practice variations between jurisdictions.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has emerged as a methodology for Health Technology Assessment (HTA). However, limited empirical evidence is available on its use by decision-makers; where available, it only comes from single-setting exercises, while cross-country comparative studies are unavailable. This study applies the Advance Value Framework (AVF), an MCDA methodology for HTA based on multi-attribute value theory, through a series of case studies with decision-makers in four countries, to explore its feasibility and compare decision-makers' value preferences and results. The AVF was applied in the evaluation of three drugs for metastatic, castrate resistant, prostate cancer (abiraterone, cabazitaxel and enzalutamide) in the post-chemotherapy indication. Decision conferences were organised in four European countries in collaboration with their HTA or health insurance organisations by involving relevant assessors and experts: Sweden (TLV), Andalusia/Spain (AETSA), Poland (AOTMiT) and Belgium (INAMI-RIZIV). Participants' value preferences, including performance scoring and criteria weighting, were elicited through a facilitated decision-analysis modelling approach using the MACBETH technique. Between 6 and 11 criteria were included in each jurisdiction's value model, allocated across four criteria domains; Therapeutic Benefit criteria consistently ranked first in relative importance across all countries. Consistent drug rankings were observed in all settings, with enzalutamide generating the highest overall weighted preference value (WPV) score, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. Dividing drugs' overall WPV scores by their costs produced the lowest "cost per unit of value" for enzalutamide, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. These results come in contrast with the actual country HTA recommendations and pricing decisions. Overall, although some differences in value preferences were observed between countries, drug rankings remained the same. The MCDA methodology employed could act as a decision support tool in HTA, due to the transparency in the construction of value preferences in a collaborative manner.

Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

Challenges in the value assessment, pricing and funding of targeted combination therapies in oncology

BACKGROUND

The use of targeted combination therapy (TCT) is becoming the standard of care in oncology as cancers are attacked through multiple inhibition mechanisms. TCTs pose a budget challenge to health systems and an economic return challenge for companies developing them.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify challenges specific to TCTs and reviewed publicly available reports by health technology assessment and pricing and reimbursement bodies. We synthesized our findings into a problem map.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Challenges and policy solutions linked to TCTs remain almost fully unexplored; we identified few resources that explicitly addressed TCTs. Contributors to the budget challenge are found at different layers; they and include static willingness-to-pay (WTP) for TCTs and inefficiencies in managing prices of backbone therapies. Economic return challenges are related to payer-imposed restrictions, peculiarities of TCT development, and conflicting incentives of pharmaceutical companies that own constituent therapies. Consequences are delayed or restricted patient access to TCTs, disincentives for research and development, and fewer life years gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple issues will lead to the unsustainability of funding systems and possible conflict between stakeholders around access to TCTs. To manage these, new value assessment and attribution methodologies, modified trial designs and differentiated WTP thresholds can be considered in ways that are customized to the characteristics of different health systems.

Heterogeneous Recommendations for Oncology Products Among Different HTA Systems: A Comparative Assessment

Rising budget constraints and demands for healthcare services create additional complexity within the decision process for resource allocation. Innovations and scientific progress have been shown to be key drivers of the increase in healthcare expenditures (1). In the context of rising medical care costs and limited resources, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was developed as a tool to inform decision-making and to provide the rationalization behind these decisions driving resource allocation and spending for health technology products. Furthermore, HTA agencies make the decision-making process more transparent. The HTA approach involves evaluating multiple aspects of a new product's value in order to maximize health gain provided within the setting of limited resources.

Paradigms in operation: explaining pharmaceutical benefit assessment outcomes in England and Germany

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are used as a policy tool to appraise the clinical value, or cost effectiveness, of new medicines to inform reimbursement decisions in health care. As HTA organisations have been established in different countries, it has become clear that the outcomes of medicine appraisals can vary from country to country, even though the same scientific evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials is available. The extant literature explains such variations with reference to institutional variables and administrative rules. However, little research has been conducted to advance the theoretical understanding of how variations in HTA outcomes might be explained. This paper compares cases of HTA in England and Germany using insights from Kuhn (1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) and Hall (1993, Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25, 275-296) to demonstrate how policy paradigms can explain the outcomes of HTA processes. The paper finds that HTA outcomes are influenced by a combination of logical issues that require reasoning within a paradigm, and institutional and political issues that speak to the interaction between ideational and interest-based variables. It sets out an approach that advances the theoretical explanation of divergent HTA outcomes, and offers an analytical basis on which to assess current and future policy changes in HTA.

Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more 'innovation-friendly' than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?

Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Both agencies may be considered as exemplars for the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine and the logic of cost-effectiveness, respectively. Methods: We extracted data from all publically available G-BA appraisals until April 2015, as well as all NICE single technology appraisals completed during this period. We compared HTA results for matched condition-intervention pairs by G-BA and NICE, and explored other factors including therapeutic area, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results: NICE issued guidance for 88 technologies (125 subgroups) and recommended 67/88 technologies (99/125 subgroups). G-BA completed 105 appraisals (226 subgroups) and determined additional benefit for 64/105 appraisals (90/226 subgroups). We identified 37 matched pairs; for 24/37 drugs, evaluations diverged. NICE recommended 78% (29/37) of technologies appraised, whereas G-BA confirmed additional benefit for 57% (21/37) only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: NICE evaluates new drugs more favorably than G-BA. However, our analysis suggests differences by therapeutic area. Results indicate that different methods are associated with systematic differences in HTA outcomes.

What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

BACKGROUND

Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit).

RESULTS

Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.

Comparing Use of Health Technology Assessment in Pharmaceutical Policy among Earlier and More Recent Adopters in the European Union

OBJECTIVES

To examine and compare the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for the reimbursement of new medicines in selected European Union member states with decades of experience in the use of HTA and in countries that have used it regularly since 2000.

METHODS

The selected countries were categorized into "earlier" adopters (group A: England, Germany, France, and Sweden) and more "recent" adopters (group B: Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania). A systematic review of published literature was performed. The analysis and comparison of HTA procedures were done by using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

In all countries, the assessment criteria used include effectiveness, safety, relative effectiveness, and economic data. In group A countries, the main objectives are improving quality of care, ensuring equal access, and efficient use of resources. Group B countries have established HTA organizations with official guidelines but often seek the decisions of other developed countries. They place considerable emphasis on the budget impact of new therapies, and HTA is also used as a cost estimation tool for state budgets.

CONCLUSIONS

HTA organizations have been developed dynamically not only in high-income countries but also in countries with limited resources. The experience and evolution of both can be used by countries that are in the dawn of creating an HTA organization.

Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries

This study systematically compares HTA recommendations on a number of disease-modifying therapies for patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. We analysed publicly available HTA reports for nine medicine-indication pairs across seven OECD countries using a methodological framework enabling systematic analysis of HTA recommendations. The analysis was conducted based on a number of value dimensions, including clinical and economic variables, as well as several other dimensions of value beyond cost-effectiveness. The material was qualitatively and quantitatively coded following the different stages of HTA decision-making process. Fifty-seven medicine-indication pairs were assessed across the study countries. Of those, eight medicine indication-pairs reported diverging HTA recommendations. Although HTA recommendations were based on the same evidence submitted in most cases, significant variations were identified in interpretation and acceptance of evidence resulting in different uncertainties raised and different ways of addressing them. Uncertainties arose both in terms of the clinical and the economic evidence, including the design of key trials or the data quality in economic models. Beyond costs and effects, additional dimensions of value had an impact in the direction of recommendations, however with different magnitude across countries. We show that there is heterogeneity across countries in HTA for evaluating DMTs for RRMS with a lack of standardised methods in evaluating clinical and economic evidence and the use of social value judgments to inform decision-making.

Building Synergy between Regulatory and HTA Agencies beyond Processes and Procedures-Can We Effectively Align the Evidentiary Requirements? A Survey of Stakeholder Perceptions

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the current practice of companies and agencies to assess the changes made in aligning regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholders; to identify areas of commonality of evidentiary requirements that could occur; and to identify strategic issues and trends of regulatory and HTA synergy.

METHODS

Two separate questionnaires were developed to assess stakeholders' perceptions on regulatory and HTA alignment, one for pharmaceutical companies and the other for regulatory and HTA agencies. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Seven regulatory and 8 HTA agencies from Australia, Canada, and Europe and 19 international companies developing innovative medicine responded to the survey. This study provided a snapshot of the current regulatory and HTA landscape. Changes made over the past 5 years were reflected in three main areas: there is an increasing interaction between regulatory and HTA agencies; current conditional regulatory approvals are not always linked with flexible HTA approaches; and companies are more supportive of joint scientific advice. Four types of evidentiary requirements were identified as building blocks for better alignment: acceptable primary end points, inclusion of an active comparator, use of patient-reported outcomes, and choice and use of surrogate end point.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that the gap between regulatory and HTA requirements has narrowed over the past 5 years. All respondents supported synergy between regulatory and HTA stakeholders, and the study provided several recommendations on how to further improve evidentiary alignment including the provision of joint scientific advice, which was rated as a key strategy by both agencies and companies.

Access to orphan drugs - comparison across Balkan countries

The aim of this study was to compare orphan drug access in a sample of Balkan countries: five EU Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Romania, Slovenia) and two EU Candidates (Serbia, Montenegro). The comparative analysis was based on a cross-sectional study and included medicinal products with an active orphan designation and market authorisation on January 1, 2017. Access to orphan drugs is an ongoing challenge in these countries. Three clusters of countries were identified in terms of orphan drug access: Greece and Slovenia, making the top tier, Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia, being in the middle, and EU Candidates, Serbia and Montenegro, forming the bottom tier, where a substantial number of EU market approved orphan drugs was not even registered. Available public health resources and market size are probably among the contributing factors for such inequalities. Sizeable part of EMA market authorised orphan medicinal products is not even priced in the Balkan countries. This is a serious issue, which is putting rare disease patients from this region in a particularly vulnerable situation. There is a need for further improvement in accessibility of orphan drugs in the Balkan countries. Cross-border collaboration in the field of pricing, health technology assessment, and reimbursement negotiation of orphan drugs may help to address these challenges.

OPTIMIZING USABILITY OF AN ECONOMIC DECISION SUPPORT TOOL: PROTOTYPE OF THE EQUIPT TOOL

OBJECTIVES

Economic decision-support tools can provide valuable information for tobacco control stakeholders, but their usability may impact the adoption of such tools. This study aims to illustrate a mixed-method usability evaluation of an economic decision-support tool for tobacco control, using the EQUIPT ROI tool prototype as a case study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional mixed methods design was used, including a heuristic evaluation, a thinking aloud approach, and a questionnaire testing and exploring the usability of the Return of Investment tool.

RESULTS

A total of sixty-six users evaluated the tool (thinking aloud) and completed the questionnaire. For the heuristic evaluation, four experts evaluated the interface. In total twenty-one percent of the respondents perceived good usability. A total of 118 usability problems were identified, from which twenty-six problems were categorized as most severe, indicating high priority to fix them before implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining user-based and expert-based evaluation methods is recommended as these were shown to identify unique usability problems. The evaluation provides input to optimize usability of a decision-support tool, and may serve as a vantage point for other developers to conduct usability evaluations to refine similar tools before wide-scale implementation. Such studies could reduce implementation gaps by optimizing usability, enhancing in turn the research impact of such interventions.

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Differences in Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Common Versus Rare Conditions: A Case from Oncology

BACKGROUND

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are used to assess the value for money of new drugs. Many believe that ICERs for drugs that treat rare diseases are much higher than those of common drugs. Our objective was to compare the proportion of ICERs that are cost effective for rare and common cancers.

METHODS

We used the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry to identify cost-effectiveness studies of pharmaceutical interventions for cancers. Studies that assessed FDA-approved 'orphan drugs' were categorized as assessing rare cancers. The proportion of common and rare cancer drugs that were cost effective at various ICER thresholds were compared along with study characteristics. Logistic regressions were conducted to assess important predictors of cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

We identified 303 studies that reported 701 ICERs. Seventy nine percent (n = 240) of studies evaluated drugs for common cancers. At a threshold of US$50,000/QALY, 58% (n = 321) of ICERs for drugs treating common cancers and 64% (n = 94) of ICERs for drugs treating rare cancers were cost effective (p = 0.23). At US$100,000/QALY, 74% (n = 409) of ICERs for common cancers and 78% (n = 115) of ICERs for rare cancers were cost effective (p = 0.35). Results from the logistic regressions demonstrated that rarity was not a statistically significant predictor of cost effectiveness at both thresholds with publication year, study sponsorship, and cancer type as covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of ICERs that were cost effective at both thresholds does not appear to be significantly different between the two groups. Rarity is not statistically significantly associated with cost effectiveness, even when adjusted for important covariates.

The enigma of value: in search of affordable and accessible health care

In times of shrinking resources and pharmaceutical breakthrough situations, our value-assessing systems are stretched to their very limits. Assessing value is highly complex. Current value-assessment systems risk neglecting important factors, such as therapy duration, budget impact, or the importance of combination therapies. Especially when dealing with breakthrough therapies within high-prevalence indications, these factors play an important role in health care spending. When it comes to assessing value in Switzerland, the system is innovation and access-friendly; the price level of pharmaceutical products, however, is relatively high in comparison to neighboring countries. The Swiss pricing and reimbursement system can still improve in terms of efficiency and transparency.