Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:06:56.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is value portable? An examination of contextual and practical considerations that affect the transferability of value assessments between settings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2022

Patricia G. Synnott Open the ORCID record for Patricia G. Synnott [Opens in a new window] ,
Pei-Jung Lin ,
Stacey S. Hickson ,
Christoph Glaetzer  and
Daniel A. Ollendorf Open the ORCID record for Daniel A. Ollendorf [Opens in a new window]
Patricia G. Synnott*
Affiliation:
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
Pei-Jung Lin
Affiliation:
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
Stacey S. Hickson
Affiliation:
Global Market Access, Janssen Inc. Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, NJ, USA
Christoph Glaetzer
Affiliation:
Global Market Access, Janssen Inc. Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, NJ, USA
Daniel A. Ollendorf
Affiliation:
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Patricia G. Synnott, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The extent to which value assessments are uniquely deployed in any given geographic setting is variable. Increasingly, markets are seeking insights from external health technology assessments (HTAs) to assist with decisions surrounding the adoption of new technologies. We reviewed the environment, infrastructure, and practice of value assessment in six countries, with a focus on how these elements influence the transferability of value assessments between settings.

Methods

We reviewed the diverse settings in which six organizations conducting HTA operate, and explored how differences might affect the transferability of value assessment. We focused attention on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, China’s National Center for Medicine and HTA, Germany’s Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (Core 2 Health), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and Wales, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in the United States.

Results

HTA is adopted to address unique objectives for a given health system and is tailored to support local standards and preferences. Some elements of a value assessment, such as evidence on clinical effectiveness, may be more transferable than others. It is challenging to appropriately adjust external assessments to the local context.

Conclusions

Contextual differences influence both the role and application of HTA. These differences limit the transferability of value assessments from one setting to another. De novo appraisals, customized to the local decision context, are the ideal approach to determinations about value.

Keywords

Technology assessmentBiomedicalPolicySocial controlFormalHealth planningCosts and cost analysis
Type
Policy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e39
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banta, D (2009) Health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 25, 253–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Rourke, B, Oortwijn, W, Schuller, T (2020) The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 36, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission (2021) Regulation on health technology assessment; [cited 18 Jan 2021]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/health/health-technology-assessment/regulation-health-technology-assessment_en.Google Scholar
Drummond, M, Barbieri, M, Cook, J, et al (2009 ) Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 12, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angelis, A, Lange, A, Kanavos, P (2018) Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: Results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 19, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heijink, R, Reitmeir, P, Leidl, R (2017) International comparison of experience-based health state values at the population level. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 15, 138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Si, L, Xu, L, Chen, M, Jan, S (2020) Using strategic price negotiations to contain costs and expand access to medicines in China. BMJ Glob Health. 5, e002256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamae, I, Thwaites, R, Hamada, A, Fernandez, JL (2020) Health technology assessment in Japan: A work in progress. J Med Econ. 23, 317–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, A, Johnstone, A (2001) Postcode prescribing and the Human Rights Act 1998. J R Soc Med. 94, 159–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (2020) 2020–2023 Value assessment framework; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_2020_2023_VAF_102220.pdf.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018) Pharmaceutical reimbursement and pricing in Germany; [cited 22 Dec 2021]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Pharmaceutical-Reimbursement-and-Pricing-in-Germany.pdf.Google Scholar
Wang, S, Gum, D, Merlin, T (2018) Comparing the ICERs in medicine reimbursement submissions to NICE and PBAC-does the presence of an explicit threshold affect the ICER proposed? Value Health. 21, 938–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franken, M, Heintz, E, Gerber-Grote, A, Raftery, J (2016) Health economics as rhetoric: The limited impact of health economics on funding decisions in four European countries. Value Health. 19, 951–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (2020) General methods, version 6.0; [cited 19 Jan 2022]. Available at: https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/general-methods_version-6-0.pdf.Google Scholar
Cameron, D, Ubels, J, Norström, F (2018) On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: A systematic review. Glob Health Action. 11, 1447828.Google Scholar
Australian Government Department of Health (2016) Guidelines for preparing a submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee (Version 5.0); [cited 12 Oct 2021]. Available at: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/files/pbac-guidelines-version-5.pdf.Google Scholar
Ellis, A, Walton, S, Otuonye, I, et al (2018) Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors as preventive treatments for patients with episodic or chronic migraine: Effectiveness and value. Insitute for Clinical and Economic Review; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ICER_Migraine_Final_Evidence_Report_070318.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Erenumab for preventing migraine [ID1188]; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ta10302.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (2020) 7.05 ERENUMAB. Public summary document – March 2019 PBAC meeting; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2019-03/files/erenumab-psd-march-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (2020) Erenumab (migraine) – Benefit assessment according to §35a social code book V. 2019; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.iqwig.de/download/A18-71_Erenumab_Extract-of-dossier-assessment_V1-0.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2020) Fremanezumab for preventing migraine: Technology appraisal guidance [TA63]; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta631.Google Scholar
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (2020) Fremanezumab (migraine) – Benefit assessment according to §35a Social code book V. IQWiG reports – Commission No. A19–44 Translation of sections 2.1 to 2.7 of the dossier assessment Fremanezumab (Migräne) – Nutzenbewertung gemäß § 35a SGB V (Version 1.0; Status: 13 August 2019); [cited 27 August 2020].Google Scholar
Tice, J, Whittington, M, Walsh, J, et al (2020) Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for BCell cancers: Effectiveness and value. Final evidence report. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ICER_CAR_T_Final_Evidence_Report_032318.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Tisagenlecleucel for treating relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more systemic therapies; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta567.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (2018) 1519 - Tisagenlecleucel (CTL019) for treatment of refractory CD19-positive leukaemia and lymphoma; [cited 27 Aug 2021]. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/1519-public.Google Scholar
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (2020) [G18–11] Tisagenlecleucel (B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) - Assessment according to §35a (para. 1., sentence 11) Social Code Book V. 2018; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.iqwig.de/en/projects-results/projects/health-economic/g18-11-tisagenlecleucel-b-cell-acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia-assessment-according-to-35a-para-1-sentence-11-social-code-book-v.10617.html.Google Scholar
Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (2021) C2H1902 Tisagenlecleucel /DLBCL (KymriahR); [cited 12 Jan 2022]. Available at: https://c2h.niph.go.jp/results/C2H1902/C2H1902_Report_DLBCL_Eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (2021) C2H1902 Tisagenlecleucel /B-ALL (KymriahR); [cited 12 Jan 2022]. Available at: https://c2h.niph.go.jp/results/C2H1902/C2H1902_Report_BALL_Eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (2019) Fremanezumab (migraine) – Benefit assessment according to §35a Social Code Book V. IQWiG Reports – Commission No. A19–44 Translation of Sections 2.1 to 2.7 of the dossier assessment Fremanezumab (Migräne) – Nutzenbewertung gemäß § 35a SGB V (Version 1.0; Status: 13 August 2019); [cited 27 Aug 2021]. Available at: https://www.iqwig.de/en/projects/a19-44.html.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (2020) 5.06 FREMANEZUMAB. Public summary document – November 2019 PBAC meeting; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2019-11/files/fremanezumab-psd-november-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Tisagenlecleucel for treating relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in people aged up to 25 years; [cited 27 Aug 2020]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta554.Google Scholar
Macpherson, K, Thompson, L (2017) Experiences in adapting European network for health technology assessment rapid reviews to inform local decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 33, 155–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Alshreef, A, MacQuilkan, K, Dawkins, B, et al (2019 ) Cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: Adaptation of a model-based economic evaluation from the United Kingdom to South Africa. Value Health Reg Issues. 19, 65–74.Google ScholarPubMed