Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:20:54.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING VALUE, BUDGET IMPACT, AND AFFORDABILITY IN ASIA

Part of: Special Collection - Policy Forums

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2017

Grace Hampson ,
Chris Henshall  and
Adrian Towse
Grace Hampson
Affiliation:
Office of Health [email protected]
Chris Henshall
Affiliation:
HTAi Asia Policy Forum
Adrian Towse
Affiliation:
Office of Health Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore definitions of value and the use of budget impact and affordability considerations in health technology assessment (HTA) in the Asia region, particularly in relation to high cost technologies.

Methods: Issues were debated by senior representatives from HTA and payer systems in Asian countries, delegates from industry, and invited experts at the 2016 meeting of the HTAi Asia Policy Forum (HAPF). A premeeting survey was used to gather data on how value is assessed and budget impact calculations are used within current processes, as well as current approaches to managing affordability.

Results: All systems consider health benefit to be the key component of value. There is little consensus around “wider” elements of value that should be included. All systems use budget impact in decision making, although meeting attendees noted the challenges in making accurate estimates. The most common strategies used to address affordability concerns to date have been: restricting coverage, for example, to patients who are likely to get the highest value; discounts; and revenue caps. It was noted that these “solutions” may have unintended consequences of creating inequitable access to therapies and failing to provide adequate rewards for innovation.

Conclusions: Decision makers, HTA agencies, and industry need to continue to work together to find mutually agreeable solutions to ensure that patients continue to get equitable access to effective therapies at costs that can be afforded throughout the Asia region.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentValue-based purchasingCosts and cost analysis
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , 2017 , pp. 315 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Rosenthal, E, Graham, C. Price and affordability of direct-acting antiviral regimens for hepatitis C virus in the United States. Infectious Agents and Cancer. 2016;11:24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Iyengar, S, Tay-Teo, K, Vogler, S, et al. Costs, and affordability of new medicines for hepatitis C in 30 countries: An economic analysis. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002032.Google Scholar
3. Husereau, D, Sampietro-Colom, L, Henshall, C, Thomas, S. 2016. Changing health technology assessment paradigms? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:1.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Marsden, G, Henshall, C, Towse, A. Assessing Value, Budget impact and affordability to inform discussions on access and reimbursement: Principle and practice, with special reference to high cost medicines. Background Paper to the 2016 HTAi Asia Policy Forum Meeting. London: Office of Health Economics; 2017. https://www.ohe.org/publications/assessing-value-budget-impact-and-affordability-inform-discussions-access-and (accessed April 2017).Google Scholar
5. Chatham House. Chatham House Rule. The Royal Institute of International Affairs; no date. https://www.chathamhouse.org//node/44 (accessed February 2017).Google Scholar
6. Henshall, C, Schuller, T. Health technology assessment, value based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:353-359.Google Scholar
7. Towse, A, Barnsley, P. Approaches to identifying, measuring and aggregating elements of value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:360-364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. OHE and EPEMED. The value of knowing and knowing the value: Improving the health technology assessment of complementary diagnostics. White paper; 2016. http://www.ohe.org/sites/default/files/WP_EpemedOHE_final.pdf (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar
9. Garrison, L, Kamal-Bahl, S, Towse, A. toward a broader concept of value: Identifying and defining elements for an expanded cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health. 2017;20:213-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Knies, S, Severens, JL, Ament, AJ, Evers, SM. 2010. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2010;13:519-527.Google Scholar
11. Neumann, P, Cohen, J. Measuring the value of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;373:27.Google Scholar
12. Westrich, K. Current landscape: Value assessment frameworks. National Pharmaceutical Council; 2016. http://www.npcnow.org/publication/current-landscape-value-assessment-frameworks (accessed February 2017).Google Scholar
13. Sulivan, S, Mauskopf, J, Augustovski, F, et al. Budget impact analysis—Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17:5-14.Google Scholar
14. Tapestry Networks. Building a sustainable health system for curative therapies. 2016. http://www.tapestrynetworks.com/initiatives/healthcare/upload/Curative-Therapies-ViewPoints-Building-a-sustainable-health-system-for-curative-therapies-May-2016.pdf (accessed February 2017).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hampson supplementary material

Supplementary Table

Download Hampson supplementary material(File)
File 15.4 KB