Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:02:57.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What aspects of the health technology assessment process recommended by international health technology assessment agencies received the most attention in Poland in 2008?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2011

Katarzyna Kolasa ,
Malgorzata Dziomdziora  and
Liberty Fajutrao
Katarzyna Kolasa
Affiliation:
Warsaw Medical University
Malgorzata Dziomdziora
Affiliation:
Employers' Union of Innovative Pharmaceutical Companies in Poland (INFARMA)
Liberty Fajutrao
Affiliation:
Foundation for the Advancement of Clinical Epidemiology (FACE)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which international standards on transparency and quality are met by the health technology assessment (HTA) process in Poland. A secondary objective is to describe the outcomes of the HTA process and their associated factors.

Methods: All published online HTA appraisal and meeting proceedings on pharmaceutical products in 2008 were reviewed using a score card developed from international checklists recommended by INAHTA and ECHTA.

Results: The sixty-nine reports reviewed showed that five of nine transparency standards and six of eight quality standards were usually met by the HTA reports. Areas for improvement for transparency include inputs from external stakeholders, availability of English summaries, conclusions, implications of results, and suggested program of action. Areas of improvement for quality include appropriateness of target population and comparator/s, sufficiency of evidence on efficacy and safety, methodological rigor, economic model assumptions, and adaptation to the Polish setting. A consideration of the ethical and social consequences to the healthcare system must also be strengthened.

Conclusions: The study demonstrates that the incorporation and implementation of the HTA appraisal process in Poland has been successful. HTA appraisal reports in Poland have considered most of the international standards of transparency and quality. Recommendations for both HTA users and doers are forwarded for the improvement of the HTA process in the Polish setting.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentAppraisal processInternational standardsPoland
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 84 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

REFERENCES

1. AHTAPoL. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modeling in health technology assessment: A review and consolidation of quality assessment. www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed 10 September, 2008).Google Scholar
2. AHTAPol: Process of preparing recommendations regarding the financing of health technologies from public funds. Ordinance Nr 20 of the Director of AHTAPol, dated March 27, 2007.Google Scholar
3. Battista, R, Hodge, M. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:1464–1467.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Becker, C. If you have it you use it. Latest Blues association study finds new technology drives demand but also increases spending. Mod Health. 2003;33:9.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Bending, MW, Kruger, J, Hutton, J, McGrath, C. Analysis of factors associated with reimbursement decision making in health technology assessment agencies (HTA). Poster presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 11th Annual European Congress, Athens, 8–11 November 2008.Google Scholar
6. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, Perleth, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Draborg, E. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Drummond, M, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258; discussion 362–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Evers, S, Goossens, M, de Vet, H, van Tulder, M, Ament, A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Garcia-Altes, A, Ondategui-Parra, S, Neumann, P. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment, a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hilman, A. Task force on principles for economic analysis of health care technology: Economic analysis of health care technology: A report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:61–70.Google Scholar
13. Kristensen, FB. Transnational collaboration on health technology assessment – a political priority in Europe. In: Garrido, MV, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health-policy making in Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2008:5–19.Google Scholar
14. Lafortune, L, Farand, L, Mondou, I, et al. Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:76–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the socio-politics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Ministry of Health, Poland. Law on health care services financed from public sources, dated 27 August 2004. Journal of Laws No. 164, item 1027, 2008 with further changes and its executive acts.Google Scholar
17. Ministry of Health, Poland. Ordinance on health technology assessment agency, dated 1 September 2005 establishing the Health Technology Assessment Agency. Journal of Laws by the Ministry of Health No. 13, item 56. 2005.Google Scholar
18. Neumann, P, Drummond, M, Jönsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.Google Scholar
19. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. June 2008. www.nice.org.uk (accessed November 25, 2008).Google Scholar
20. Schulpher, M, Fenwick, E, Claxton, K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Sculpher, M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:799–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Scott, H, Moskowitz, J. Health technology assessment in Canada and the United States: The case of biologics. Biotechnol Healthc. 2007;April:47–51.Google Scholar
23. Velasco-Garrido, M, Busse, R. Health technology assessment. An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2005.Google Scholar