Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:10:50.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VP78 Cross-Country Variation In Health Technology Assessment Preferences: An International Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:

Several studies have explored how Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes, HTA submission requirements, perception and handling of uncertainties vary across different jurisdictions (1-3). However, no study has elicited HTA stakeholders’ preferences/priorities on criteria that shape coverage decisions across countries. We aimed to identify the extent to which preferences on criteria, uncertainties and other factors that shape HTA recommendations differ across countries.

METHODS:

HTA stakeholders in Brazil, England, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden were invited via email to complete a web-survey. A number of clinical, economic and other criteria (that is, rarity/orphan status and stakeholder input, among others) considered in HTAs, along with additional factors related to clinical evidence uncertainties, unmet need and innovative nature of treatment were ranked in terms of their importance on a 7-point Likert-scale. Responses were anonymised and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS:

Responses were received from Brazil (n = 9), England (n = 7), France (n = 10), Italy (n = 6), Netherlands (n = 3), Spain (n = 3) and Sweden (n = 3). “Achievement of/Concerns around clinical benefit” was the only clinical criterion/uncertainty scoring equally important across countries (100 percent of respondents in each country). The requirement for/uncertainty around “Appropriate comparators” scored high in importance overall but was not consistent across countries, nor was the “Acceptability of surrogate rather than clinical endpoints”. Variation was seen in all economic criteria, apart from “Budget impact analysis” (equally important for more than 80 percent of respondents in each country). Greater differences were observed in the level of priority that innovation, disease severity and stakeholder input have towards HTA coverage decisions across countries.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although agreement was seen in preferences mostly for some of the clinical criteria and/or evidentiary requirements ranked, there were notable differences on countries' priorities for economic evidence criteria/uncertainties and the extent to which unmet need, disease burden and innovation are considered important towards HTA decision-making, possibly explaining differences in HTA recommendations.

Type
Vignette Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

REFERENCES:

1. Nicod, E. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18 (6):715730. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0823-0. Epub 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Kanavos, P, Nicod, E, Van den Aardweg, S, Pomedli, S. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. EuroObserver. 2010;12 (4):16.Google Scholar
3. Akehurst, RL, Abadie, E, Renaudin, N, Sarkozy, F. Variation in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Processes in Europe. Value Health. 2017;20 (1):6776.Google Scholar