Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee

A Narrative Review of the Evidence for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implants

Currently, multiple transcatheter aortic valves exist in clinical use, with varying efficacy and safety rates. This review aims to evaluate the evidence base for current transcatheter valves used in the management of aortic stenosis in Australia to improve informed decision making for both clinicians and patients. The evidence base included published peer-reviewed human studies of aortic valves with approval for use in Australia through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Embase was utilised on the 17 September 2024, and one hundred ninety-seven publications met the inclusion criteria, including six from citation searching. The Sapien series led with the largest number of patients reported in the literature (n = 91,614) and publications (n = 147), followed by the CoreValve/Evolut series with 65,459 patients and 125 publications. Evidence for both of these transcatheter aortic valve series were also published in high impact journals, with the greatest H-index journal being The New England Journal of Medicine. In conclusion, the evidence base for the safety and efficacy of the Sapien and CoreValve/Evolut series currently leads in both quantity and quality. This review also summarises the Australian medical device regulatory and funding process in the context of transcatheter aortic valves.

Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations.

METHODS

A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC's Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)-indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation.

RESULTS

The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients' access to medicines.

Assessing the development of health technology assessment in Iran: a policy analysis using Kingdon's Multiple streams framework: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is crucial for optimizing healthcare investments and improving system efficiency. In Iran, the rising costs of healthcare technologies and systemic inefficiencies have highlighted the need for a structured HTA framework. However, despite academic discussions, HTA has not yet been fully integrated into formal health policy. This study explores the development of HTA in Iran using Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to identify challenges and opportunities for its advancement.

METHODS

The study employed qualitative methods, including 16 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in Iran's healthcare system. Participants, consisting of 12 males and 4 females with an average age of 41.56 years and an average work experience of 14.37 years, provided insights into the current state of HTA. The participants included individuals in key leadership roles within public and private institutions, such as the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, hospital managers, policymakers, and senior academics. Data were analyzed using Kingdon's framework to examine the problem, policy, and politics streams, as well as the role of policy entrepreneurs and potential policy windows.

RESULTS

Findings revealed that the rising costs of healthcare technologies, particularly imported ones, and inefficiencies in technology use were major concerns. Participants indicated that HTA could address these issues by ensuring cost-effectiveness and better health outcomes. Despite the technical feasibility of implementing HTA in Iran, there is a significant gap between theoretical discussions and policy action. Resistance from the private sector and the need for political backing were identified as major barriers. However, the political climate in Iran is becoming increasingly favorable, with growing interest in healthcare efficiency and transparency. The Covid-19 pandemic and healthcare shortages have exposed vulnerabilities, presenting potential opportunities for HTA's adoption. Leadership roles in key institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, were identified as vital to advancing HTA initiatives. Policy entrepreneurs play a crucial role in advocating for HTA and capitalizing on these opportunities.

CONCLUSION

HTA is recognized as a valuable tool for improving healthcare efficiency and equity in Iran. However, significant challenges remain in transitioning from academic discussions to formal policy. The political environment and recent healthcare crises offer opportunities to advance HTA. To successfully integrate HTA into Iran's healthcare system, it is essential to address existing barriers, leverage political interest, and support policy entrepreneurs. The experiences of other countries, especially those with strong institutional leadership in HTA, provide useful models for Iran to follow in its HTA development journey.

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.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: State of the Art and Implications for Radiologists

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are already being marketed as noninvasive, convenient opportunities to test for multiple cancer types with a single blood sample. The technology varies-involving detection of circulating tumor DNA, fragments of DNA, RNA, or proteins unique to each targeted cancer. The priorities and tradeoffs of reaching diagnostic resolution in the setting of possible false positives and negatives remain under active study. Given the well-established role of imaging in lesion detection and characterization for most cancers, radiologists have an essential role to play in selecting diagnostic pathways, determining the validity of test results, resolving false-positive MCED test results, and evaluating tradeoffs for clinical policy. Appropriate access to and use of imaging tests will also factor into clinical guidelines. Thus, all clinicians potentially involved with MCED tests for cancer screening will need to weigh the benefits and harms of MCED testing, including consideration of how the tests will be used alongside or in place of other screening options, how diagnostic confirmation tests should be selected, and what the implications are for policy and reimbursement decisions. Further, patients will need regular support to make informed decisions about screening using MCED tests in the context of their personal cancer risks, health-related values, and access to care.

Pre-market health systems barriers and enablers to infectious diseases point-of-care diagnostics in Australia: qualitative interviews with key informants

BACKGROUND

There exist multiple regulatory layers for point-of-care (POC) testing to be implemented within Australia. This qualitative analysis sought to understand the pre-market barriers and facilitators to scale-up infectious diseases POC testing in primary care settings at the national level.

METHODS

Key informant interviews were undertaken with people (n = 30) working in high- level positions relevant to infectious diseases POC testing in Australia. Participants were recruited from federal and state health departments, industry, and nongovernment national peak bodies. The Unitaid scalability framework informed this analysis to understand barriers and enablers to creating access conditions and establishing country readiness for market access of POC tests.

RESULTS

Participants identified regulatory frameworks as significant barriers to market access. National strategies and advocacy were viewed as potential enablers to establishing country readiness. It was recommended that the national system for universal health care should fund infectious disease POC tests to ensure financial sustainability, though the existing pathology infrastructure was regarded as a likely inhibitor.

CONCLUSIONS

Current regulatory frameworks inhibit market access for infectious disease POC testing devices for use in the primary care setting. National advocacy is urgently needed to gain government support and align national policies with regulatory frameworks.

Development of a Prioritization Framework to Aid Healthcare Funding Decision Making in Health Technology Assessment in Australia: Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study develops a prioritization framework to aid healthcare funding decision making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Australia using a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach.

METHODS

MCDA frameworks for HTAs were reviewed through literature survey to identify the initial criteria and levels within each criterion. Key stakeholders and experts were consulted to confirm these criteria and levels. A conjoint analysis using 1000Minds was undertaken with policy makers from the Department of Health to establish ranking criteria and weighting scores. Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine the sensitivity of findings to factors affecting the ranking and weighting scores. The MCDA was then applied to 6 examples of chronic care models or technologies projects to demonstrate the performance of this approach.

RESULTS

Five criteria (clinical efficacy/effectiveness, safety and tolerability, severity of the condition, quality/uncertainty, and direct impact on healthcare costs) were consistently ranked highest by healthcare decision makers. Among the criteria, patient-level health outcomes were considered the most important, followed by social and ethical values. The analyses were robust to inform the uncertainty in the parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed an MCDA tool that effectively integrates key priorities for HTA reviews, reflecting the values and preferences of healthcare stakeholders in Australia. Although this tool aims to align the assessment process more closely with health benefits, it also highlights the importance of considering other criteria.

Understanding the extent of economic evidence usage for informing policy decisions in the context of India's national health insurance scheme: Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY)

INTRODUCTION

Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY) is one of the world's largest tax-funded insurance schemes. The present study was conducted to understand the decision-making process around the evolution (and revision) of health benefit packages (HBPs) and reimbursement rates within PM-JAY, with a specific focus on assessing the extent of use of economic evidence and role of various stakeholders in shaping these policy decisions.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was adopted involving in-depth interviews with seven key stakeholders involved in HBP design and reimbursement rates decisions, and a survey of 80 government staff and other relevant stakeholders engaged in the implementation of PM-JAY. The data gathered were thematically analysed, and a coding framework was developed to explore specific themes. Additionally, publicly available documents were reviewed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making processes.

RESULTS

Findings reveal a progressive transition towards evidence-based practices for policy decisions within PM-JAY. The initial version of HBP relied heavily on key criteria like disease burden, utilisation rates, and out-of-pocket expenditures, along with clinical opinion in shaping decisions around the inclusion of services in the HBP and setting reimbursement rates. Revised HBPs were informed based on evidence from a national-level costing study and broader stakeholder consultations. The use of health economic evidence increased with each additional revision with consideration of health technology assessment (HTA) evidence for some packages and reimbursement rates based on empirical cost evidence in the most recent update. The establishment of the Health Financing and Technology Assessment unit further signifies the use of evidence-based policymaking within PM-JAY. However, challenges persist, notably with regard to staff capacity and understanding of HTA principles, necessitating ongoing education and training initiatives.

CONCLUSION

While substantial progress has been made in transitioning towards evidence-based practices within PM-JAY, sustained efforts and political commitment are required for the ongoing systematisation of processes.

A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.

METHODS

Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.

RESULTS

Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

Preconditions for efficiency and affordability in mixed health systems: are they fulfilled in the Australian public-private mix?

The Australian health system is characterised by high quality care by international standards, produced by a mix of public and private provision and funding of healthcare services. Despite good overall results, three issues are of concern. The first issue relates to the public procurement of healthcare, whose flaws have impacted individuals' access to care, and the high out-of-pocket spending. The second issue concerns the sustainability of the private health insurance market, given the government's goal of relieving cost and capacity from the public scheme, incentivising participation. Third, there are existing inefficiencies and inequities related to the duplication resulting from the interaction between public and private schemes. To ensure a sustainable, efficient and equitable health system, structural reforms are necessary to achieve long-term performance improvements. Using a framework for mixed public-private health systems, we assess the extent to which the Australian healthcare system achieves preconditions for efficiency and affordability in competitive healthcare markets.

Empowering quality data - the gordian knot of bringing real innovation into healthcare system

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of Personalised Medicine (PM) into healthcare systems could benefit from a clearer understanding of the distinct national and regional frameworks around the world. Recent engagement by international regulators on maximising the use of real-world evidence (RWE) has highlighted the scope for improving the exploitation of the treasure-trove of health data that is currently largely neglected in many countries. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) led an international study aimed at identifying the current status of conditions.

METHODS

A literature review examined how far such frameworks exist, with a view to identifying conducive factors - and crucial gaps. This extensive review of key factors across 22 countries and 5 regions revealed a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, provisions and conditions, and permitted the construction of a comprehensive overview of the current status of PM. Based on seven key pillars identified from the literature review and expert panels, the data was quantified, and on the basis of further analysis, an index was developed to allow comparison country by country and region by region.

RESULTS

The results show that United States of America is leading according to overall outcome whereas Kenya scored the least in the overall outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Still, common approaches exist that could help accelerate take-up of opportunities even in the less prosperous parts of the world.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Rituximab vs Mycophenolate Mofetil for the Treatment of Pemphigus Vulgaris

Importance

There is an increasing body of literature that supports the use of rituximab as a first-line steroid-sparing agent in pemphigus vulgaris. However, the cost of rituximab is substantial compared with conventional agents, and there are limited health economic data to justify its use.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rituximab biosimilars relative to mycophenolate mofetil as a first-line steroid-sparing agent for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cost-utility analysis over a 24-month time horizon was conducted from the perspective of the Australian health care sector using a modeled cohort of treatment-naive adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. A Markov cohort model was constructed to simulate disease progression following first-line treatment with rituximab biosimilars or mycophenolate mofetil. The simulated cohort transitioned between controlled disease, uncontrolled disease, and death. Efficacy and utility data were obtained from available published literature. Cost data were primarily obtained from published government data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. Primary outcomes were the changes in cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over the 24 months.

Interventions

Rituximab biosimilars and mycophenolate mofetil.

Results

The simulated cohort of treatment-naive patients had a mean age of 50.8 years, a female-to-male ratio of 1.24, and moderate to severe disease as classified by the Harman criteria. First-line rituximab biosimilars were associated with a cost reduction of AU$639 and an improvement of 0.07 QALYs compared with mycophenolate mofetil, resulting in an ICER of -AU$8818/QALY. Rituximab biosimilars were therefore more effective and less costly compared with mycophenolate mofetil. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rituximab biosimilars remained cost-effective across a range of values for cost, utility, and transition probability input parameters and willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-utility analysis, rituximab biosimilars were cost-effective compared with mycophenolate mofetil for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. Further investigation into its cost-effectiveness over a longer time horizon is necessary, but the favorable results of this study suggest that the high acquisition costs of rituximab biosimilars may be offset by its effectiveness and provide economic evidence in support of its listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for pemphigus vulgaris.

Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to find ways of bridging the gap in opinions concerning health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement submission between manufacturers and payers to avoid access delays for patients of vital medicines such as oncology drugs. This was done by investigating differences and similarities of opinion among key stakeholders in Australia.

METHODS

The survey comprised of nine sections: background demographics, general statements on HTA, clinical claim, extrapolations, quality of life, costs and health resource utilization, agreements, decision making, and capability/capacity. Responses to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

There were ninety-seven respondents in total, thirty-seven from the public sector (academia/government) and sixty from the private sector (industry/consultancies). Private and public sector respondents had similar views on clinical claims. They were divided when it came to extrapolation of survival data and costs and health resource utilization. However, they generally agreed that rebates are useful, outcomes-based agreements are difficult to implement, managed entry schemes are required when data are limited, and willingness to pay is higher in cancer compared to other therapeutic areas. They also agreed that training mostly takes place through on the job training and that guideline updates were a least favored opportunity for continued training.

CONCLUSIONS

Private sector respondents favor methods that reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to the public sector respondents. There still exist a number of challenges for HTA in oncology and many research opportunities as a result of this study.

Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma based on mature survival data, updated safety and lower comparator price

Aims: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus everolimus for second-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on mature data, updated safety and decreased everolimus price.Materials and methods: A 3-state (pre-progression/progression-free disease, progressive disease and death) Markov model was developed from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Two scenarios were tested. Scenario 1 used 30-months clinical data and scenario 2 used updated 80-months clinical data with updated everolimus price. Inputs for quality-of-life and costs were informed by the literature and government sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained was reported and an ICER threshold of AU$75,000 was assumed. Threshold analysis was performed, and uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: In scenario 1, the model estimated 1.73 QALYs at a cost of AU$105,000 for nivolumab and 1.48 QALYs at AU$38,000 for everolimus with an ICER = AU$266,871/QALY gained. A rebate of 54.4% was needed for nivolumab to reach the ICER threshold. For scenario 2, 1.93 QALYs at AU$111,418 was estimated for nivolumab and 1.60 QALYs at AU$31,942 for everolimus with an ICER of AU$213,320/QALY gained. The rebate needed to reach the ICER threshold was 54.9%. One-way sensitivity analyses for both scenarios showed that the cost of nivolumab, time horizon and utilities were main drivers. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves highlighted the differences in cost-effectiveness of the two scenarios, as well as significant uncertainty in the results.Conclusions: A 54% rebate of the published price is needed for nivolumab to be cost-effective in Australia for the treatment of RCC. At that rebate, nivolumab remains cost-effective despite severe price erosion of everolimus because of improved longer term follow-up data. We recommend that generic price erosion should be accounted for when performing cost-effectiveness analysis.