OP165 Health Technology Assessment And Public Health Priority Setting In China

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 36-36
Author(s):  
Yue Xiao ◽  
Yingpeng Qiu ◽  
Liwei Shi ◽  
Kun Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
National Program ◽  
Deliberative Process

IntroductionSince 2009, China has initiated a national program on free provision of essential public health services. The national program has expanded both in terms of service categories and funding, showing China's great commitment to universal health coverage. However, with slowdown of public input in the health sector, the government decided to prioritize interventions and optimize reimbursement packages. Researchers in the China National Health Development Research Center (CNHDRC)—the Chinese national health technology assessment (HTA) agency were asked to design the tools to facilitate the decision process.MethodsWith multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method, the researchers analyzed value dimensions in public health issues, and built an evidence matrix for the priority-setting decisions. Supported by HTA tools, they appraised interventions and services through literature review and field studies, and projected budget impact of potential adjustment decisions based on cost analysis results. A deliberative process of key stakeholder groups was taken, and their views were counted in making the final recommendations.ResultsBased on evidence review and scores of stakeholders’ judgment, two public health service interventions were recommended for removal, and another two for adjustment (one for merger, one for optimizing care pathway). Cost estimation and potential budgetary impact were also analyzed to support financial decisions.ConclusionsHTA and MCDA are key tools for defining the value criteria, evidence framework, and deliberative process for the essential public health program. However, lack of cost-effectiveness evidence hinders fine-tuned decisions on resource allocation. Continual health economic evaluation needs to be conducted in the near future.

Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Husereau ◽  
Michel Boucher ◽  
Hussein Noorani
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Comparison Approach ◽  
Available Information

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe a current practical approach of priority setting of health technology assessment (HTA) research that involves multi-criteria decision analysis and a deliberative process.Methods: Criteria related to HTA prioritization were identified and grouped through a systematic review and consultation with a selection committee. Criteria were scored through a pair-wise comparison approach. Criteria were pruned based on the average weights obtained from consistent (consistency index < 0.2) responders and consensus. HTA proposals are ranked based on available information and a weighted criteria score. The rank, along with additional contextual information and discussion among committee members, is used to achieve consensus on HTA research priorities.Results: Six of eleven criteria represented > 75 percent of the weight behind committee member decisions to conduct an HTA. These criteria were disease burden, clinical impact, alternatives, budget impact, economic impact, and available evidence. Since May 2006, committees have considered 102 proposals at sixteen biannual in-person advisory committee meetings. These have selected twenty-nine research priorities for the HTA program.Conclusions: The approach works well and was easy to implement. Feedback from committee members has been positive. This approach may assist HTA and other research agencies in better priority setting by informing the selection of the most important and policy-relevant topics in the presence of a wide variety of research proposals. This may in turn lead to efficiently allocating resources available for HTA research.

scholarly journals Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Benkhalti ◽  
Manuel Espinoza ◽  
Richard Cookson ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Pilot Test

Abstract Objectives Health technology assessment (HTA) can impact health inequities by informing healthcare priority-setting decisions. This paper presents a novel checklist to guide HTA practitioners looking to include equity considerations in their work: the equity checklist for HTA (ECHTA). The list is pragmatically organized according to the generic HTA phases and can be consulted at each step. Methods A first set of items was based on the framework for equity in HTA developed by Culyer and Bombard. After rewording and reorganizing according to five HTA phases, they were complemented by elements emerging from a literature search. Consultations with method experts, decision makers, and stakeholders further refined the items. Further feedback was sought during a presentation of the tool at an international HTA conference. Lastly, the checklist was piloted through all five stages of an HTA. Results ECHTA proposes elements to be considered at each one of the five HTA phases: Scoping, Evaluation, Recommendations and Conclusions, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, and Reassessment. More than a simple checklist, the tool provides details and examples that guide the evaluators through an analysis in each phase. A pilot test is also presented, which demonstrates the ECHTA's usability and added value. Conclusions ECHTA provides guidance for HTA evaluators wishing to ensure that their conclusions do not contribute to inequalities in health. Several points to build upon the current checklist will be addressed by a working group of experts, and further feedback is welcome from evaluators who have used the tool.

scholarly journals Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low- and middle-income countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e004549
Author(s):  
Cassandra Nemzoff ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Abha Mehndiratta ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income

PP58 The Alliance Between Health Technology Assessment And Public Health In National Screening Policies

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 48-48
Author(s):  
Leonor Varela-Lema ◽  
Janet Puñal-Riobóo ◽  
Paula Cantero-Muñoz ◽  
Maria José Faraldo-Vallés
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Screening Programs

IntroductionDecision making regarding national population-based prenatal and newborn screening policies is recognized to be highly challenging. This paper aims to describe the formalized collaboration that has been established between the Spanish National Public Health Screening Advisory Committee (PHSAC) and the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies to support the development of evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to support this process.MethodsIn-depth description and analysis of the strategic and methodological processes that have been implemented within the Spanish National Health System prenatal and newborn screening frameworks, with special emphasis on the role, actions, and responsibilities of HTA agencies.ResultsThe role of HTA agencies is threefold: (i) support the PHSAC by providing evidence on safety, effectiveness and cost/effectiveness of the screening tests/strategies, as well as contextualized information regarding costs, organizational, social, legal and ethical issues; (ii) collaborate with the PHSAC in the development of formal evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for defining population screening programs, when required; (iii) analyze real-world data that is generated by piloted programs. This paper will provide real-life examples of how these processes were implemented in practice, with a special focus on the development of the non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) policy. Recommendations for NIPT were developed by a multidisciplinary group based on the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) rapid assessment report and the predictive models that were built using national statistics and other contextualized data.ConclusionsThe current work represents an innovative approach for prenatal and newborn screening policymaking, which are commonly difficult to evaluate due to the low quality of evidence and the confounding public health issues. The paper raises awareness regarding the importance of joint collaborations in areas where evidence is commonly insufficient for decision making.

INTRODUCTION: HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Banta ◽  
Wija Oortwijn
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level

Health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important in the European Union as an aid to decision making. As agencies and programs have been established, there is increasing attention to coordination of HTA at the European level, especially considering the growing role of the European Union in public health in Europe. This series of papers describes and analyzes the situation with regard to HTA in the 15 members of the European Union, plus Switzerland. The final paper draws some conclusions, especially concerning the future involvement of the European Commission in HTA.

scholarly journals PHP106 Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment in Ukraine

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. A32
Author(s):  
V. Pariy ◽  
A. Stepanenko ◽  
O. Mandrik ◽  
O. Zalis'ka
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology

PP120 Health Technology Assessment Framework To Capture The Full Value Of Value Added Medicines

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Author(s):  
Mondher Toumi ◽  
Cecile Remuzat ◽  
Adam Plich
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Drug Repositioning ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Patient Reported

INTRODUCTION:Value added medicines (VAM) are medicines based on known molecules that address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvements for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers through drug repositioning, drug reformulation or drug combination (1-3). Recently, the European Commission, through the Safe and Timely Access to Medicines for Patients (STAMP) program, considered the issue of VAM development and regulatory process. Current Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tools may not fully capture the benefits of VAM, which could lead to obstacles for patient access to VAM in several European countries (1). The study objective was to identify how HTA frameworks should evolve to reflect VAM value.METHODS:HTA expert interviews were performed as a preparatory step to an advisory board meeting. The following topics were addressed: (i) Eligibility for HTA and early HTA dialogues; (ii) Attributes that should be considered in HTA; (iii) HTA methodology; and (iv) Involvement of stakeholders in HTA.RESULTS:VAMs bring additional benefit to patients and society. Therefore, the possibility for VAM assessment on a voluntary basis and within the appropriate assessment patterns/tools should be, in principle, included into HTA frameworks, as well as into early HTA dialogues. HTA should be patient-centric, and attributes such as patient preference, adherence, and patient reported outcomes should be considered where relevant. Unmet patient needs and disease burden should be used in a transparent and reproducible deliberative process. All these attributes should be used as explicitly and meaningfully weighted appraisal modifiers. HTA methodology should be comprehensive and should integrate societal perspectives. Patient representatives should take part in the decision-making process.CONCLUSIONS:Current HTA frameworks should evolve to enhance VAM value recognition and encourage industry investment in medicines with high potential value for society.

scholarly journals Assessing potential cures: are there distinctive elements of value beyond health gain?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-265
Author(s):  
Saskia Hendriks ◽  
Steven D Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Double Counting ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Potential Opportunity

Assessing the ‘value’ of potential cures can be challenging, as some have suggested that cures may offer distinctive benefits from noncurative treatments. We explore what these – previously unspecified – additional benefits may be. We suggest that three new elements of value seem distinctive to cures: liberation from the identity of being diseased, liberation from the stigma associated with the disease and liberation from the burden of ongoing therapy. However, including additional elements of value in health technology assessment may result in double counting and requires consideration of potential opportunity costs. We suggest health technology assessment should explore the relevance of these three elements of value and may have good reasons to – judiciously – integrate them through the deliberative process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document