Achieving optimal technology use: A proposed model for health technology reassessment

Deliberative process of health technology reassessment by health technology assessment agency in Korea

In 2019, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) in Korea established a health technology reassessment (HTR) system to manage the life cycle of health technologies and develop operational measures promoting the efficient use of healthcare resources. The purpose of this study is to introduce the detailed implementation process and practical functional methods of the HTR implemented by NECA.The HTR is a structured multidisciplinary method for analyzing health technologies currently used in the healthcare system based on the latest information on parameters, such as clinical safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of optimizing the use of healthcare resources as well as social and ethical issues. All decision-making stages of the HTR are carefully reviewed and transparently managed. The HTR committee makes significant decisions, and the subcommittee decides the details related to the assessment process.Since the pilot began in 2018, 262 cases have been reassessed, of which, 126 cases (48.1 percent) were health services not covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI). Over the past 5 years, approximately 130 recommendations for the in-use technologies were determined by the HTR committee. In the near future, it will be necessary to officially develop and establish a Korean HTR system and a legal foundation to optimize the NHI system.

Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic "lifecycle approach" is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.

Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook"

BACKGROUND

To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative.

METHODS

The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (i.e., potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting.

RESULTS

An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game).

CONCLUSION

The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) uses evidence appraisal and synthesis with economic evaluation to inform adoption decisions. Standard HTA processes sometimes struggle to (1) support decisions that involve significant uncertainty and (2) encourage continued generation of and adaptation to new evidence. We propose the life-cycle (LC)-HTA framework, addressing these challenges by providing additional tools to decision makers and improving outcomes for all stakeholders.

METHODS

Under the LC-HTA framework, HTA processes align to LC management. LC-HTA introduces changes in HTA methods to minimize analytic time while optimizing decision certainty. Where decision uncertainty exists, we recommend risk-based pricing and research-oriented managed access (ROMA). Contractual procurement agreements define the terms of reassessment and provide additional decision options to HTA agencies. LC-HTA extends value-of-information methods to inform ROMA agreements, leveraging routine, administrative data, and registries to reduce uncertainty.

RESULTS

LC-HTA enables the adoption of high-value high-risk innovations while improving health system sustainability through risk-sharing and reducing uncertainty. Responsiveness to evolving evidence is improved through contractually embedded decision rules to simplify reassessment. ROMA allows conditional adoption to obtain additional information, with confidence that the net value of that adoption decision is positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The LC-HTA framework improves outcomes for patients, sponsors, and payers. Patients benefit through earlier access to new technologies. Payers increase the value of the technologies they invest in and gain mechanisms to review investments. Sponsors benefit through greater certainty in outcomes related to their investment, swifter access to markets, and greater opportunities to demonstrate value.

Optimizing red blood cell transfusion practices in the intensive care unit: a multi-phased health technology reassessment

Background

Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a process to manage existing health technologies to ensure ongoing optimal use. A model to guide HTR was developed; however, there is limited practical experience. This paper addresses this knowledge gap through the completion of a multi-phase HTR of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Objective

The HTR consisted of three phases and here we report on the final phase: the development, implementation, and evaluation of behavior change interventions aimed at addressing inappropriate RBC transfusions in an ICU.

Methods

The interventions, comprised of group education and audit and feedback, were co-designed and implemented with clinical leaders. The intervention was evaluated through a controlled before-and-after pilot feasibility study. The primary outcome was the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions (i.e., with a pre-transfusion hemoglobin of 70 g/L or more).

Results

There was marked variability in the monthly proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions. Relative to the pre-intervention phase, there was no significant difference in the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions post-intervention. Lessons from this work include the importance of early and meaningful engagement of clinical leaders; tailoring the intervention modalities; and, efficient access to data through an electronic clinical information system.

Conclusions

It was feasible to design, implement, and evaluate a tailored, multi-modal behavior change intervention in this small-scale pilot study. However, early evaluation of the intervention revealed no change in technology use leading to reflection on the important question of how the HTR model needs to be improved.

A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models

BACKGROUND

Reduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.

METHODS

We searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.

RESULTS

The final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.

CONCLUSION

De-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM.

REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework.

Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's Reassessment and Uptake Working Group

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration.

Identification of knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks suitable for health technology reassessment: a survey of international experts

OBJECTIVE

Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a field focused on managing a technology throughout its life cycle for optimal use. The process results in one of four possible recommendations: increase use, decrease use, no change or complete withdrawal of the technology. However, implementation of these recommendations has been challenging. This paper explores knowledge translation (KT) theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) and their suitability for implementation of HTR recommendations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposeful sampling of international KT and HTR experts was administered between January and March 2019.

METHODS

Sixteen full-spectrum KT TMFs were rated by the experts as 'yes', 'partially yes' or 'no' on six criteria: familiarity, logical consistency/plausibility, degree of specificity, accessibility, ease of use and HTR suitability. Consensus was determined as a rating of ≥70% responding 'yes'. Descriptive statistics and manifest content analysis were conducted on open-ended comments.

RESULTS

Eleven HTR and 11 KT experts from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden participated. Of the 16 KT TMFs, none received ≥70% rating. When ratings of 'yes' and 'partially yes' were combined, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was considered the most suitable KT TMF by both KT and HTR experts (86%). One additional KT TMF was selected by KT experts: Knowledge to Action framework. HTR experts selected two additional KT TMFs: Co-KT framework and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Experts identified three key characteristics of a KT TMF that may be important to consider: practicality, guidance on implementation and KT TMF adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite not reaching an overall ≥70% rating on any of the KT TMFs, experts identified four KT TMFs suitable for HTR. Users may apply these KT TMFs in the implementation of HTR recommendations. In addition, KT TMF characteristics relevant to the field of HTR need to be explored further.

Characteristics of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks for health technology reassessment: expert perspectives through a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a process that systematically assesses technologies that are currently used in the health care system. The process results in four outputs: increase use or decrease use, no change, or de-adoption of a technology. Implementation of these outputs remains a challenge. The Knowledge Translation (KT) field enables to transfer/translate knowledge into practice. KT could help with implementation of HTR outputs. This study sought to identify which characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks could be useful, specifically for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive approach was used to ascertain the perspectives of international KT and HTR experts on the characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and sub-themes were deduced from the data through framework analysis using five distinctive steps: familiarization, identifying an analytic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. Themes and sub-themes were also mapped to existing KT theories, models, and frameworks.

RESULTS

Thirteen experts from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Sweden participated in the study. Three themes emerged that illustrated the ideal traits: principles that were foundational for HTR, levers of change, and steps for knowledge to action. Principles included evidence-based, high usability, patient-centered, and ability to apply to the micro, meso, macro levels. Levers of change were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative influences for changing behaviour for HTR. Steps for knowledge to action included: build the case for HTR, adapt research knowledge, assess context, select interventions, and assess impact. Of the KT theories, models, and frameworks that were mapped, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research had most of the characteristics, except ability to apply to micro, meso, macro levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics that need to be considered within a KT theory, model, and framework for implementing HTR outputs have been identified. Consideration of these characteristics may guide users to select relevant KT theories, models, and frameworks to apply to HTR projects.

Internal barriers to efficiency: why disinvestments are so difficult. Identifying and addressing internal barriers to disinvestment of health technologies

Although efficiency is a core concept in health economics, its impact on health care practice still is modest. Despite an increased pressure on resource allocation, a widespread use of low-value care is identified. Nonetheless, disinvestments are rare. Why is this so? This is the key question of this paper: why are disinvestments not more prevalent and improving the efficiency of the health care system, given their sound foundation in health economics, their morally important rationale, the significant evidence for a long list of low-value care and available alternatives? Although several external barriers to disinvestments have been identified, this paper looks inside us for mental mechanisms that hamper rational assessment, implementation, use and disinvestment of health technologies. Critically identifying and assessing internal inclinations, such as cognitive biases, affective biases and imperatives, is the first step toward a more rational handling of health technologies. In order to provide accountable and efficient care we must engage in the quest against the figments of our minds; to disinvest in low-value care in order to provide high-value health care.

Biases distorting priority setting

Modern health care faces an ever widening gap between technological possibilities and available resources. To handle this challenge we have constructed elaborate systems for health policy making and priority setting. Despite such systems many health care systems provide a wide range of documented low-value care while being unable to afford emerging high-value care. Accordingly, this article sets out asking why priority setting in health care has so poor outcomes while relevant systems are well developed and readily available. It starts to identify some rational and structural explanations for the discrepancy between theoretical efforts and practical outcomes in priority setting. However, even if these issues are addressed, practical priority setting may still not obtain its goals. This is because a wide range of irrational effects is hampering priority setting: biases. By using examples from the literature the article identifies and analyses a wide range of biases indicating how they can distort priority setting processes. Overuse, underuse, and overinvestment, as well as hampered disinvestment and undermined priority setting principles are but some of the identified implications. Moreover, while some biases are operating mainly on one level, many are active on the micro, meso and on the macro level. Identifying and analyzing biases affecting priority setting is the first, but crucial, step towards improving health policy making and priority setting in health care.

Health Technology Assessment as Part of a Broader Process for Priority Setting and Resource Allocation

Over the last two decades, economic evaluation of health technologies has developed enormously, affirming its importance within the pursuit of efficiency in the management of health care systems. One concern that has been raised with health technology assessment (HTA) has been its operationalization within the realm of decision making. Here, we suggest a mechanism by which HTA can be understood as an input into a broader framework for priority setting and resource allocation. When HTA is seen in this light, topics that at times have had some lack of clarity, such as public engagement and disinvestment, simply become steps in the overall decision-making process.

Health Technology Agency insights: informing modification of a qualitative benefit risk framework for Health Technology Reassessment of prescription medications

OBJECTIVES

This study's intent was to determine if a qualitative benefit risk framework could be used or modified to further enable Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) of prescription medicine recommendations. The purpose of this research was to understand Canadian Health Technology Agency assessors past experiences and insights to inform any modifications to the Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA) qualitative framework. The UMBRA framework consists of an eight-step process, used during the assessment phase, to aid in decision making and dissemination.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted and included a purposeful, criterion-based sample of eight assessors who had participated in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or HTR for prescription medicines or in qualitative decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

Participant interviews lead to four common themes: "adoption of a qualitative benefit risk framework," "data (either too much or not enough)," "importance of incorporating stakeholder values," and "feasibility of the UMBRA framework." Methodological challenges with HTR were highlighted including the lack of clinical outcome data and the ability to compare clinically relevant meaningful differences. The implementation of a ranking or weighing process found within the UMBRA framework was not favored by half of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Research participants did not consider all steps of the UMBRA framework to be transferable to the assessment phase of HTR given the need for simplicity, resource efficiency, and stakeholder input throughout the process. The assessor experiences and insights and the resultant key themes can be used in future research to aid in the development of a qualitative recommendation framework for HTR.

Knowledge translation and health technology reassessment: identifying synergy

Background

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is an emerging field that shifts the focus from traditional methods of technology adoption to managing technology throughout its lifecycle. HTR is a mechanism to improve patient care and system efficiency through a reallocation of resources away from low-value care towards interventions and technologies that are high value. To achieve this, the outputs of HTR and its recommendations must be translated into practice. The evolving field of knowledge translation (KT) can provide guidance to improve the uptake of evidence-informed policies and recommendations resulting from the process of HTR. This paper argues how the theories, models and frameworks from KT could advance the HTR process.

Discussion

First, common KT theories, models and frameworks are presented. Second, facilitators and barriers to KT within the context of HTR are summarized from the literature. Facilitators and barriers to KT include ensuring a solid research evidence-base for the technology under reassessment, assessing the climate and context, understanding the social an political context, initiating linkage and exchange, having a structured HTR Process, adequate resources, and understanding the roles of researchers, knowledge users, and stakeholders can enhance knowledge translation of HTR outputs. Third, three case examples at the individual (micro), organizational (meso), and policy (macro) levels are used to illustrate to describe how a KT theory, model or framework could be applied to a HTR project. These case studies show how selecting and applying KT theories, models and frameworks can facilitate the implementation of HTR recommendations.

Conclusion

HTR and KT are synergistic processes that can be used to optimize technology use throughout its lifecycle. We argue that the application of KT theories, models and frameworks, and the assessment of barriers and facilitators to KT can facilitate translation of HTR recommendations into practice.

Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data

Background

Active management of existing health technologies (e.g., devices, diagnostic, and/or medical procedures) to ensure the delivery of high value care is increasingly recognized around the world. A number of initiatives have raised awareness of technologies that may be overused, mis-used, or potentially harmful by compiling them into lists of low value care. However, despite the growing number of lists, changes to local healthcare practices remain challenging for many systems. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a process, leveraging existing initiatives and data assets, to produce a list of prioritized low value technologies for health technology reassessment (HTR).

Methods

An expert advisory committee comprised of clinical experts and health system decision-makers was convened to determine key process requirements. Once developed, the process was piloted to assess feasibility in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC).

Results

The expert advisory committee identified five required attributes for the process: data-driven, routine and replicable, actionable, stakeholder collaboration, and high return on investment. Guided by these attributes, a 5-step process was developed. First, over 1300 published low value technologies (i.e., from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] “do not do” recommendations, low value technologies in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, and Choosing Wisely “Top 5” lists) were identified. Using appropriate coding systems for BC’s administrative health data (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD]), the low value technologies were queried to examine frequencies and costs of technology use. This information was used to rank potential candidates for reassessment based on high annual budgetary impact. Lastly, clinical experts reviewed the ranked technologies prior to broad dissemination and stakeholder action. Pilot testing of the process in BC resulted in the prioritization of 9 initial candidate technologies for reassessment.

Conclusions

This is the first account of a systematic approach to move a collective body of low value technology recommendations into action in a healthcare setting. This work demonstrates the feasibility and strength of using administrative data to identify and prioritize low value technologies for HTR at a population-level.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3459-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

UNTANGLING, UNBUNDLING, AND MOVING FORWARD: FRAMING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY REASSESSMENT IN THE CHANGING CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE

OBJECTIVES

Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a policy process to manage health technologies throughout their lifecycle and ensure their ongoing optimal use. However, within an ever-evolving field, HTR is only one of many concepts associated with the optimization of health technologies. There is limited understanding of how other concepts and processes might differ and/or be interrelated. This study aims to describe the concepts underlying the various technology optimization processes and to reconcile their relationships within the HTR process.

METHODS

A synthesis of the literature on approaches to HTR was completed. An inductive synthesis approach was completed to catalogue common concepts and themes. Expert stakeholders were consulted to develop a schematic to diagrammatically depict the relationships among concepts and frame them within the HTR process.

RESULTS

A practical schematic was developed. Common concepts and themes were organized under six major domains that address the following discussion questions: (i) what is the value of the existing technology?; (ii) what is the current utilization gap?; (iii) what are the available tools and resources?; (iv) what are the levers for change?; (v) what is the desired outcome?; and (vi) who are the foundational actors?

CONCLUSIONS

Using these six questions to frame the issues faced by HTR will advance the common understanding of HTR, as well as improve implementation of HTR initiatives. These questions will clearly identify the process required to move forward within a complex healthcare system.