Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T01:45:30.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Peter J. Neumann ,
Michael F. Drummond ,
Bengt Jönsson ,
Bryan R. Luce ,
J. Sanford Schwartz ,
Uwe Siebert  and
Sean D. Sullivan
Peter J. Neumann
Affiliation:
Tufts Medical Center
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Bengt Jönsson
Affiliation:
Stockholm School of Economics
Bryan R. Luce
Affiliation:
United BioSource Corporation
J. Sanford Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Uwe Siebert
Affiliation:
University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology
Sean D. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previously, our group—the International Working Group for HTA Advancement—proposed a set of fifteen Key Principles that could be applied to health technology assessment (HTA) programs in different jurisdictions and across a range of organizations and perspectives. In this commentary, we investigate the extent to which these principles are supported and used by fourteen selected HTA organizations worldwide. We find that some principles are broadly supported: examples include being explicit about HTA goals and scope; considering a wide range of evidence and outcomes; and being unbiased and transparent. Other principles receive less widespread support: examples are addressing issues of generalizability and transferability; being transparent on the link between HTA findings and decision-making processes; considering a full societal perspective; and monitoring the implementation of HTA findings. The analysis also suggests a lack of consensus in the field about some principles—for example, considering a societal perspective. Our study highlights differences in the uptake of key principles for HTA and indicates considerable room for improvement for HTA organizations to adopt principles identified to reflect good HTA practices. Most HTA organizations espouse certain general concepts of good practice—for example, assessments should be unbiased and transparent. However, principles that require more intensive follow-up—for example, monitoring the implementation of HTA findings—have received little support and execution.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysisHealth technology assessmentHealth policy
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 71 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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. Aronson, N. Establishing key principles for health technology assessment. ISPOR 13th Annual International Meeting. 2008.Google Scholar
2. Banta, HD. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.” Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Drummond, M, Grubert, N. International trends in the use of health economic data. Waltham MA: Spectrum Report, Decision Resources; 2007.Google Scholar
5. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258.Google Scholar
6. Emanuel, EJ, Fuchs, VR, Garber, AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:1323–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The use of health technology assessments (HTA) to evaluate medicines: EFPIA key principles. Brussels: EFPIA; 2005.Google Scholar
8. Garcia-Altes, A, Ondategui-Parra, S, Neumann, PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300–310.Google Scholar
9. Hailey, D. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.” Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hutton, J, McGrath, C, Frybourg, JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). http://www.inahta.org/HTA (accessed March 31, 2008).Google Scholar
12. Jonsson, B. IQWiG: An opportunity lost? Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:205–207.Google Scholar
13. Luce, B, Cohen, RS. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):33–41.Google Scholar
14. Martelli, F, La Torre, G, Di Ghionno, E, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:414–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Neuhauser, D. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Neumann, PJ, Sullivan, SD. Economic evaluation in the US: What is the missing link? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Schwarzer, R, Siebert, U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305–314.Google Scholar
18. Sullivan, SD, Watkins, J, Sweet, B, Ramsey, SD. Health technology assessment in health care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12:s39–s44.Google Scholar