Priority-setting and health technology assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 36-63
Author(s):  
Daniel Wei Liang Wang
Author(s):  
Maria Benkhalti ◽  
Manuel Espinoza ◽  
Richard Cookson ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e004549
Author(s):  
Cassandra Nemzoff ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Abha Mehndiratta ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. A32
Author(s):  
V. Pariy ◽  
A. Stepanenko ◽  
O. Mandrik ◽  
O. Zalis'ka

Author(s):  
Gavin Surgey ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
William Reuben ◽  
Fatima Suleman ◽  
Jacqui Miot ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesHealth technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsThe concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA.ResultsBetween the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting.ConclusionWhile the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.


2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilda Bastian ◽  
Fülöp Scheibler ◽  
Marco Knelangen ◽  
Beate Zschorlich ◽  
Mona Nasser ◽  
...  

Background: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients’ interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public.Objectives: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public.Methods: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients’ and consumers’ information needs and interests were identified.Results: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of “patient interest” were identified, such as patients’ concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of “patients’ interests” requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources.Conclusions: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.


Author(s):  
Andrew Webster

This study provides a sociological commentary on the current debates within health technology assessment (HTA), specifically in response to the approaches taken in France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It argues that HTA is part of a wider reflexive innovation system that seeks to order current and prospective technologies. The study discusses the socio-political process of HTA priority setting, the rhetorical role of HTA, the localised and contingent use of HTA, and the policy gap between guidelines and practice. It argues for the development of new types of methodologies for assessment and for a stronger social embedding of HTA practice.


Health Policy ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wija J Oortwijn ◽  
Hindrik Vondeling ◽  
Teus van Barneveld ◽  
Christel van Vugt ◽  
Lex M Bouter

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wija J. Oortwijn ◽  
Hindrik Vondeling ◽  
Lex Bouter

AbstractPriority setting for the evaluation of health technologies in the Netherlands is exclusively based on the scientific merits of individual research proposals. This process has not resulted in satisfactory allocation of resources. Therefore, societal criteria for setting priorities for health technology assessment have been proposed as an adjunct to scientific criteria. These societal criteria include the burden of disease, uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of the intervention at issue, the potential benefits of the research project, and its potential impact on health care. To realize the full potential of this model for priority setting, a number of methodological issues need to be addressed. Joint efforts of researchers and policy makers in this field are necessary for future progress.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document