Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions

Health technology assessment (HTA) has become an integral part of decision-making on the coverage of new health technologies in most health systems in the developed world. In recent years, pressure to involve patients and members of the public in HTA has grown. In this article, we summarize findings from peer-reviewed and 'gray' literature, and discussions with key informants to determine potential roles for patients and the public in HTA and coverage decision-making. We also summarize existing roles for both groups in jurisdictions. Although there appears to be a general view that involvement of patients and the public is highly desirable, research offering insights into the effectiveness of different approaches to accomplish this is scarce. Nonetheless, many of the HTA agencies in developed countries have established some mechanism for seeking input from patients or the public in their processes.

Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different

All healthcare systems routinely make resource allocation decisions that trade off potential health gains to different patient populations. However, when such trade-offs relate to the introduction of new, promising health technologies, perceived 'winners' and 'losers' are more apparent. In recent years, public scrutiny over such decisions has intensified, raising the need to better understand how they are currently made and how they might be improved. The objective of this paper is to critically review and compare current processes for making health technology funding decisions at the regional, state/provincial and national level in 20 countries. A comprehensive search for published, peer-reviewed and grey literature describing actual national, state/provincial and regional/institutional technology decision-making processes was conducted. Information was extracted by two independent reviewers and tabulated to facilitate qualitative comparative analyses. To identify strengths and weaknesses of processes identified, websites of corresponding organizations were searched for commissioned reviews/evaluations, which were subsequently analysed using standard qualitative methods. A total of 21 national, four provincial/state and six regional/institutional-level processes were found. Although information on each one varied, they could be grouped into four sequential categories: (i) identification of the decision problem; (ii) information inputs; (iii) elements of the decision-making process; and (iv) public accountability and decision implementation. While information requirements of all processes appeared substantial and decision-making factors comprehensive, the way in which they were utilized was often unclear, as were approaches used to incorporate social values or equity arguments into decisions. A comprehensive inventory of approaches to implementing the four main components of all technology funding decision-making processes was compiled, from which areas for future work or research aimed at improving the acceptability of decisions were identified. They include the explication of decision criteria and social values underpinning processes.

Relative added value: what are the tools to evaluate it?

The relative added value of a drug is currently evaluated in France by the Transparency Commission (TC) of the National Health Authority (HAS), by assigning a level of Improvement in Actual Benefit (IAB). IAB is based on two parameters, efficacy and safety of the product, in a defined target population, either as compared to one or more other drugs with similar indications, or within therapeutic strategy. The items used for evaluation, including the level of clinical effect, the relevance of the comparator, the choice of comparison criteria and the methodology used (indirect comparison, non-inferiority studies, etc.), have been reviewed by the working group in Giens with regard to an analysis of the opinion on TC issued between 2004 and 2007 in several therapeutic areas First of all, this attempt at rationalisation based on the criteria used to assess the relative added value demonstrated the rareness of direct comparative data, and was followed by a discussion on the possible broadening of the evaluation criteria. The group discussed taking into account the Public Health Impact (PHI), which has now been incorporated into the assessment of Actual Benefit (AB). The group believes that PHI seems to be more related to the notion of IAB than to that of AB. Indeed, it is frequently the relative added value of a new drug that produces an impact in public health. Conversely, considering the comparative evaluation criteria of PHI, which are not systematically taken into account in IMSR (such as improvement in the health of the population, meeting a public health need or impact on the healthcare system), PHI could legitimately be included in the assessment of the relative added value of a drug. Other parameters such as compliance or impact on professional practice have been considered. Thus, the notion of relative added value, evaluated at initial registration, could be based on an expected improvement in medical service. The notion of expected medical service leads to the requirement of producing additional data in real life (post-registration studies), which would support the definitive notion of improvement in actual benefit at the time of renewed registration, while taking into account the place occupied by the drug in the therapeutic strategy.