scholarly journals Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrine B. Frønsdal ◽  
Karen Facey ◽  
Marianne Klemp ◽  
Inger Natvig Norderhaug ◽  
Berit Mørland ◽  
...  

Background: The way in which a health technology is used in any particular health system depends on the decisions and actions of a variety of stakeholders, the local culture, and context. In 2009, the HTAi Policy Forum considered how health technology assessment (HTA) could be improved to optimize the use of technologies (in terms of uptake, change in use, or disinvestment) in such complex systems.Methods: In scoping, it was agreed to focus on initiatives to implement evidence-based guidance and monitoring activities. A review identified systematic reviews of implementation initiatives and monitoring activities. A two-day deliberative workshop was held to discuss key papers, members’ experiences, and collectively address key questions. This consensus paper was developed by email and finalized at a postworkshop meeting.Results: Evidence suggests that the impact and use of HTA could be increased by ensuring timely delivery of relevant reports to clearly determined policy receptor (decision-making) points. To achieve this, the breadth of assessment, implementation initiatives such as incentives and targeted, intelligent dissemination of HTA result, needs to be considered. HTA stakeholders undertake a variety of monitoring activities, which could inform optimal use of a technology. However, the quality of these data varies and is often not submitted to an HTA.Conclusions: Monitoring data should be sufficiently robust so that they can be used in HTA to inform optimal use of technology. Evidence-based implementation initiatives should be developed for HTA, to better inform decision makers at all levels in a health system about the optimal use of technology.

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 63-64
Author(s):  
Ines Niehaus ◽  
Charalabos-Markos Dintsios

INTRODUCTION:The early benefit assessment of drugs in Germany and their preceded market authorization pursue different objectives, resulting in divergent decision-making strategies. This is reflected inter alia by the diverse inclusion of confirmatory endpoints within the assessments of oncological drugs. The pharmaceutical manufacturers are facing the challenge of meeting the requirements for both evaluation processes by the available evidence and avoiding hereby negative early benefit assessments. This is mainly due to the concept of mutually relevant clinical trials.METHODS:Identification and gathering of the endpoints is based on a specifically developed guide. The extracted data from the documents of completed assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate both separately and together the impact of explorative in relation to confirmatory endpoints on the drug approval and early benefit assessment, by contrasting the European Medicines Agency's risk-benefit-ratio and the benefit-harm-balancing of the national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) jurisdiction.RESULTS:Twenty-one of fourty-one studies’ oncological assessments could be included in the endpoint analysis. From a procedural point of view both the drug approval and the early benefit assessment seem to be not confirmatory since they include explorative endpoints as well. Yet, drug approval is in terms of quality of endpoints more confirmatory than early benefit assessment since it contains a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies only in 67 percent of the assessments a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm-balancing. Moreover, explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement and explorative endpoints capturing health-related quality of life no agreement, referring to the mutual relevance of endpoints for the risk-benefit-ratio and the benefit-harm-balancing.CONCLUSIONS:The missing information transparency of the assessment reports compared to the information offered within the early benefit assessment makes an assignment of endpoints with respect to the mutually relevant clinical trial sometimes troublesome. To warrant, in the long run, a broader confirmatory basis for decisions in health care supported by HTA, a closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and German HTA jurisdictions seems favorable.


2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 651-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hailey ◽  
Paula Corabian ◽  
Christa Harstall ◽  
Wendy Schneider

Objectives: To consider the impact of rapid health technology assessments undertaken as part of a program in a provincial healthcare system in response to urgent requests for advice.Methods: Review of the development and preparation of 20 rapid assessment reports, communication with decision makers within the healthcare system, and appraisal of data subsequent to preparation of the reports.Results: Fourteen of the assessments were judged to have had an influence on policy and other decisions, as judged by responses from those who had requested advice. Another four were considered to have provided guidance, while having less immediate influence on decisions, and two others had no apparent impact. Quality of the assessments was considered acceptable, on the basis of literature that subsequently became available and from comments received.Conclusions: These brief reports are considered to be a useful component of a health technology assessment program. However, they should be regarded as provisional appraisals and followed up with more detailed evaluation where possible.


2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Facey ◽  
Chris Henshall ◽  
Laura Sampietro-Colom ◽  
Sarah Thomas

Objectives: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) needs to address the challenges posed by high cost, effective technologies, expedited regulatory approaches, and the opportunities provided by collaborative real-world evaluation of technologies. The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum met to consider these issues and the implications for evidence production to inform HTA. This paper shares their discussion to stimulate further debate.Methods: A background paper, presentations, group discussions, and stakeholder role play at the 2015 HTAi Policy Forum meeting informed this paper.Results: HTA has an important role to play in helping improve evidence production and ensuring that the health service is ready to adopt effective technologies. It needs to move from simply informing health system decisions to also working actively to align stakeholder expectations about realistic evidence requirements. Processes to support dialogue over the health technology life cycle need to be developed that are mindful of limited resources, operate across jurisdictions and learn from past processes. Collaborations between health technology developers and health systems in different countries should be encouraged to develop evidence that will inform decision making. New analytical techniques emerging for real-world data should be harnessed to support modeling for HTA.Conclusions: A paradigm shift (to “Health Innovation System 2.0”) is suggested where HTA adopts a more central, proactive role to support alignment within and amongst stakeholders over the whole life cycle of the technology. This could help ensure that evidence production is better aligned with patient and health system needs and so is more effective and efficient.


2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 228-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sampietro-Colom ◽  
Sarah Thomas ◽  
Chris Henshall

Are we in a period of significant change? Is health technology assessment (HTA) undergoing a fundamental transformation? Or should it be? Are we in the middle of a paradigm shift? These are some of the questions the paper by Facey et al in this journal (1) raises about the future of HTA, based on discussions at the HTAi Policy Forum in February 2015. To further share the deliberations of the Forum and with a view to opening this debate among the wider HTA community, a panel within the HTAi 2015 Annual Meeting in Oslo was organized. Presentations at the panel included a summary of the HTAi Policy Forum deliberations and perspectives from a patient, a clinician, and representatives of an HTA organization, industry, and a health system. This letter presents issues and thoughts raised in the panel session.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 223-224
Author(s):  
Michela Tinelli ◽  
Andrea Manfrin ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
Americo Cicchetti ◽  
Andrea Mandelli

INTRODUCTION:There is a lack of Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) tools in pharmacy practice and the collection of real-world-evidence (RWE) in community pharmacy to populate longer-term-disease-progression-modelling (1). This project is looking at the development and application of a novel Patient-Reported-Outcome- Measure (PROM) in community pharmacy that can enable: the evaluation of the quality of care delivered from the patient perspective in terms of economic impact, patient health outcomes and ‘utilities’; the collection of RWE and evaluate long-term effect of care; to provide different stakeholders with unique evidence-based information that help formulate health policies in community pharmacy that are safe, effective, patient-focused and cost-effective, balancing access to innovation and cost containment.METHODS:Evidence from the Italian-Medicine-Use-Review (I-MUR) trial (2) showed that the I-MUR intervention provided by community pharmacists to asthma patients is effective, cost-saving and cost-effective (3). The trial allowed to model a framework (I-MUR-HTA) that would enable to routinely deliver the intervention, but also collect and analyse PROM data on its clinical-effectiveness, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness. I-MUR-HTA was discussed within three expert-panel discussions including policy-makers, commissioners, academics, healthcare-professionals and patient-representatives in Italy, United Kingdom and Europe. Current plan include testing the use of the tool in the real world environment.RESULTS:Evidence collected from the panel discussions confirmed that I-MUR-HTA evidence-based information is relevant to meet current National-Health-Care-System plans and this is what is needed to support the evaluation of innovative effective and cost-effective health policies and promote their implementation across nations. Current Italian law on pharmacy services provides the appropriate institutional framework to regulate the introduction of I-MUR-HTA across the territory. Its implementation is underway and a real-world pilot is planned to take place in Italy.CONCLUSIONS:I-MUR-HTA appears to be an innovative tool to promote active patient involvement into policy-decision-making and pharmacy-service.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Palozzi ◽  
Sandro Brunelli ◽  
Camilla Falivena

Innovative health technology deployment represents the primary challenge within the sustainability of public health systems. On one hand, new technologies may potentially improve access to care and the quality of services. On the other hand, their rapid evolution and broad implications on existing procedures increase the risk to adopt technologies that are not value for money. As a consequence, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a critical process at each level of the National Health System. Focusing on the organisational level, this paper explores the current practices of Hospital-Based HTA (HB-HTA) in terms of management, control and behaviours of various actors involved. Among several tasks, decision-makers are appointed at managing the conflict of interest around health technology development, that could pave the way for corruption or other misleading behaviours. Accordingly, the purpose of the study is proposing a new strategic framework, named Health Technology Balanced Assessment (HTBA), to foster hospital-based health technology management aimed to align strategy and actions. The conceptual model is developed on three perspectives (clinical, economic and organisational) to make the actors involved in the assessment (clinicians, health professionals, hospital managers and patients) aware of the impact of new technology on the value chain. Besides supporting the decision-making process, such a tool represents support for the internal control system as a whole. By promoting structured evaluation, it increases transparency and accountability of public health organisations. Moreover, in the long run, the framework proposed will be useful to reach selected United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) to enhance the quality of healthcare in the future.


2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Henshall

The paper by Drummond et al. in this issue of the Journal discusses how the principles that have been proposed in previous papers by these authors might be used as the basis for benchmarking health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This raises a number of important issues, some acknowledged and discussed by the authors, and some not. The commentary by Sampietro provides an analysis of many of these. Two issues strike me as fundamental in this debate: the need for an agreed and objective approach to describing health system decision-making systems; and the need for an agreed and objective approach to the assessment of the quality of HTA reports to support specific decisions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199455
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Bogdan Grigore ◽  
Hedwig Blommestein ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Meilin Möllenkamp ◽  
...  

Background Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports ( k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debjani Mueller ◽  
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea ◽  
Tara Schuller ◽  
Marco Chiumente ◽  
Jeonghoon Ahn ◽  
...  

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) yields information that can be ideally used to address deficiencies in health systems and to create a wider understanding of the impact of different policy considerations around technology reimbursement and use. The structure of HTA programs varies across different jurisdictions according to decision-maker needs. Moreover, conducting HTA requires specialized skills. Effective decision making should include multiple criteria (medical, economic, technical, ethical, social, legal, and cultural) and requires multi-disciplinary teams of experts working together to produce these assessments. A workshop explored the multi-disciplinary skills and competencies required to build an effective and efficient HTA team, with a focus on low- and middle-income settings.Methods: This proceeding summarizes main points from a workshop on capacity building, drawing on presentations and group discussions among attendees including different points of view.Results and Conclusions: The workshop and thus this study would have benefited from a larger variety of stakeholders. Therefore, the conclusions arising from the workshop are not the opinion of a representative sample of HTA professionals. Nonetheless, organizations and speakers were carefully selected to provide a valuable approach to this theme. Thus, these proceedings highlight some of the gaps and needs in the education and training programs offered worldwide and calls for further investigation.


1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Granados

This paper examines the rationality of the concepts underlying evidence—based medicineand health technology assessment (HTA), which are part of a new current aimed at promoting the use of the results of scientific studies for decision making in health care. It describes the different approaches and purposes of this worldwide movement, in relation to clinical decision making, through a summarized set of specific HTA case studies from Catalonia, Spain. The examples illustrate how the systematic process of HTA can help in several types of uncertainties related to clinical decision making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document