The Special Interest Group on Ethics and HTA (health technology assessment) has invited two renowned philosophers, Norman Daniels from Harvard University and Henry Richardson from Georgetown University to reflect on the role of HTA in healthcare policy making. Both acknowledge its importance, but at the same time warn against a too mechanistic deployment of HTA. In their view, the relevance of HTA to healthcare policy making would considerably be enhanced if it were subsumed within a broader deliberative framework. Why should this be so? What is there to deliberate on, who should do the deliberating, where and when, and how does this relate to the more technical elements of HTA such as evidence synthesis and economic modeling?

Current thinking about the methodology of health technology assessment (HTA) seems to be dominated by two fundamental tensions: [1] between maintaining a tight focus on quality-adjusted life-years and broadening its concern out to pay attention to a broader range of factors, and [2] between thinking of the evaluative dimensions that matter as being objectively important factors or as ones that are ultimately of merely subjective importance. In this study, I will argue that health is a tremendously important all-purpose means to enjoying basic human capabilities, but a mere means, and not an end. The ends to which health is a means are manifold, requiring all those engaged in policy making to exercise intelligence in a continuing effort to identify them and to think through how they interrelate. Retreating to the subjective here would be at odds with the basic idea of HTA, which is to focus on certain objectively describable dimensions of what matters about health and to collect empirical evidence rigorously bearing on what produces improvements along those dimensions. To proceed intelligently in doing HTA, it is important to stay open to reframing and refashioning the ends we take to apply to that arena. The only way for that to happen, as an exercise of public, democratic policy making, is for the difficult value questions that arise when ends clash not to be buried in subjective preference information, but to be front-and-center in the analysis.

Healthcare technology assessment (HTA) aims to support decisions as to which technologies should be used in which situations to optimize value. Because such decisions will create winners and losers, they are bound to be controversial. HTA, then, faces a dilemma: should it stay away from such controversies, remaining a source of incomplete advice and risking an important kind of marginalization, or should it enter the controversy? The question is a challenging one, because we lack agreement on principles that are fine grained enough to tell us what choices we should make. In this study, we will argue that HTA should take a stand on ethical issues raised by the technology that is being investigated. To do so, we propose adding a form of procedural justice to HTA to arrive at decisions that the public can regard as legitimate and fair. A fair process involves deliberation about the reasons, evidence, and rationales that are considered relevant to meeting population-health needs fairly. One important way to make sure that there is real deliberation about relevant reasons is to include a range of stakeholders in the deliberative process. To illustrate how such deliberation might work, we use the case of cochlear implants for deaf children.

Background: To our knowledge, there has been no overall systematic review focusing on the methodological quality of full economic evaluation studies of self-management interventions. Our objective was to systematically review the literature of full economic evaluation studies of self-management interventions in adult chronic patients and to investigate their methodological quality and cost-effectiveness.

Methods: A data extraction form was developed to assess general and randomized controlled trial (RCT) -related characteristics, quality, of the RCTs, economic information and quality of the economic evaluation studies by means of a quality assessment (CHEC-list for trial-based studies, adjusted CHEC-list for model-based studies).

Results: Twenty-three reports were found. Sixteen studies (73 percent) lack information on the control intervention(s). Only one study fulfilled all three criteria for quality of RCTs and five studies (23 percent) did not meet any of these criteria. This review included one model-based study; the other studies were trial-based economic evaluation studies based on a RCT. Eight studies (35 percent) used a societal perspective and 12 (60 percent) synthesized costs and effects. Seven studies were categorized into the highest category (<15 score), nine studies into the “moderate” group (9–14 score), six studies received a “low” score (<8) on the CHEC-list. Eighteen studies found the self-management intervention(s) to be cost-effective compared with other interventions

Conclusions: Self-management interventions for adult chronic patients were heterogeneous and there was no clear, well-considered definition of self-management. Overall, the methodological quality of the full economic evaluation studies was moderate and, therefore, cost-effectiveness results must be interpreted with caution. Future research will benefit from further improvements in methodological quality of both economic study design and analysis, as well as a taxonomy for describing self-management interventions and their contents.

Objectives: While most studies have focused on analyzing the results of telemedicine use, it is crucial to consider the determinants of its use to fully understand the issue. This article aims to provide evidence on the determinants of telemedicine use in clinical practice.

Methods: The survey targeted a total population of 398 medical professionals from a healthcare institution in Spain. The study sample was formed by the ninety-three primary care physicians who responded. Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model and microdata for the ninety-six physicians, binary logistic regression analysis was carried out.

Results: The analysis performed confirmed the model's goodness-of-fit, which allowed 48.1 percent of the dependent variable's variance to be explained. The outcomes revealed that the physicians at the healthcare institution placed greater importance on telemedicine's potential to reduce costs, and on its usefulness to the medical profession. The perception of medical information security and confidentiality and the patients’ predisposition toward telemedicine were the second explanatory factors in order of importance. A third set of moderating effects would appear to corroborate the importance of the physicians’ own opinions.

Conclusions: These results have revealed the need for a dynamic approach to the design of telemedicine use, especially when it targets a variety of end-users. Hence, the importance of conducting studies before using telemedicine, and attempting to identify which of the above-mentioned predictors exert an influence and how.

Objectives: Untreated obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness, increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, and road traffic accidents (RTAs), which impact survival and health-related quality of life. This study, funded by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], dental devices, lifestyle advice, and no treatment) in patients with mild-to-moderate OSAHS in France.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of two cohorts, stratified by CV risk, over a lifetime horizon. Daytime sleepiness and RTAs were taken into account for all patients while CV events were only considered for patients with high CV risk.

Results: For patients with low CV risk, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dental devices versus no treatment varied between 32,976 EUR (moderate OSAHS) and 45,579 EUR (mild OSAHS) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and CPAP versus dental devices, above 256,000 EUR/QALY. For patients with high CV risk, CPAP was associated with a gain of 0.62 QALY compared with no treatment, resulting in an ICER of 10,128 EUR/QALY.

Conclusion: The analysis suggests that it is efficient to treat all OSAHS patients with high CV risk with CPAP and that dental devices are more efficient than CPAP for mild-to-moderate OSAHS with low CV risk. However, out-of-pocket costs are currently much higher for dental devices than for CPAP (i.e., 3,326 EUR versus 2,430 EUR) as orthodontic treatment is mainly non-refundable in France.

Objectives: There is little specific guidance on performing an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical tests. We developed a framework with general steps and applied it to two cases.

Methods: Step 1 is to narrow down the scope of analysis by defining the test's application, target population, outcome measures, and investigating current test strategies and test strategies if the new test were available. Step 2 is to collect evidence on the current test strategy. Step 3 is to develop a conceptual model of the current and new test strategies. Step 4 is to conduct the early-CEA by evaluating the potential (cost-)effectiveness of the new test in clinical practice. Step 5 involves a decision about the further development of the test.

Results: The first case illustrated the impact of varying the test performance on the headroom (maximum possible price) of an add-on test for patients with an intermediate-risk of having rheumatoid arthritis. Analyses showed that the headroom is particularly dependent on test performance. The second case estimated the minimum performance of a confirmatory imaging test to predict individual stroke risk. Different combinations of sensitivity and specificity were found to be cost-effective; if these combinations are attainable, the medical test developer can feel more confident about the value of further development of the test.

Conclusions: A well-designed early-CEA methodology can improve the ability to develop (cost-)effective medical tests in an efficient manner. Early-CEAs should continuously integrate insights and evidence that arise through feedback, which may convince developers to return to earlier steps.

Objectives: The regularly structured adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) programs is of utmost importance to sustain the relevance of the products for stakeholders and to justify investment of scarce financial resources. This study describes internal adjustments and external measures taken to ensure the Horizon Scanning Programme in Oncology (HSO) is current.

Methods: Formal evaluation methods comprising a survey, a download, an environmental analysis, and a Web site questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction.

Results: The evaluation showed that users were satisfied with HSO outputs in terms of timeliness, topics selected, and depth of information provided. Discussion of these findings with an expert panel led to changes such as an improved dissemination strategy and the introduction of an additional output, that is, the publication of a league table of emerging oncology drugs. The rather high level of international usage and the environmental analysis highlighted a considerable overlap in topics assessed and, thus, the potential for international collaboration. As a consequence, thirteen reports were jointly published based on eleven “calls for collaboration.” To further facilitate collaboration and the usability of reports for other agencies, HSO reports will be adjusted according to tools developed at a European level.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the impact of HTA programs allows the tailoring of outputs to fit the needs of the target population. However, within a fast developing HTA community, estimates of impact will increasingly be determined by international collaborative efforts. Refined methods and a broader definition of impact are needed to ultimately capture the efficiency of national HTA programs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the aspects of expert advice that decision makers find most useful in the development of evidence-based guidance and to identify the characteristics of experts providing the most useful advice.

Methods: First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen members of the Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee of the UK's National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Interviews examined the usefulness of expert advice during guidance development. Transcripts were analyzed inductively to identify themes. Second, data were extracted from 211 experts’ questionnaires for forty-one consecutive procedures. Usefulness of advice was scored using an index developed through the qualitative work. Associations between usefulness score and characteristics of the expert advisor were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: Expert opinion was seen as a valued complement to empirical evidence, providing context and tacit knowledge unavailable in published literature, but helpful for interpreting it. Interviewees also valued advice on the training and experience required to perform a procedure, on patient selection criteria and the place of a procedure within a clinical management pathway. Limitations of bias in expert opinion were widely acknowledged and skepticism expressed regarding the anecdotal nature of advice on safety or efficacy outcomes. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that the most useful advice was given by clinical experts with direct personal experience of the procedure, particularly research experience.

Conclusions: Evidence-based guidance production is often characterized as a rational, pipeline process. This ignores the valuable role that expert opinion plays in guidance development, complementing and supporting the interpretation of empirical data.

Objectives: This study assesses the use of routinely collected claims data for managed entry agreements (MEA) in the illustrative context of German statutory health insurance (SHI) funds.

Methods: Based on a nonsystematic literature review, the data needs of different MEA were identified. A value-based typology to classify MEA on the basis of these data needs was developed. The typology is oriented toward health outcomes and utilization and costs, key components of a new technology's value. For each MEA type, the suitability of claims data in establishing evidence of the novel technology's value in routine care was systematically assessed. Assessment criteria were data availability, completeness, timeliness, confidentiality, reliability, and validity.

Results: Claims data are better suited to MEA addressing uncertainty regarding the utilization and costs of a novel technology in routine care. In schemes where safety aspects or clinical effectiveness are assessed, the role of claims data is limited because clinical information is not included in sufficient detail.

Conclusions: The suitability of claims data depends on the source of uncertainty and, in consequence, the outcome measures chosen in the agreements. In all schemes, the validity of claims data should be judged with caution as data are collected for billing purposes. This framework may support manufacturers and payers in selecting the most suitable contract type and agreeing on contract conditions. More research is necessary to validate these results and to address remaining medical, economic, legal, and ethical questions of using claims data for MEA.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to implement health technology assessment (HA) in the First General City Hospital in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Methods: We organized trainings to familiarize hospital staff with the purpose and details of HTA. An HTA committee was established, with representation from hospital physicians and managers, and criteria for prioritization of health technologies determined. Clinical departments of the hospital were asked to prepare applications for new technologies for their services.

Results: The HTA committee reviewed five applications and selected a technology from one of these, on single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), for assessment. A short HTA report on SILS was prepared, covering its safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. The report was used to support a request to the Department of Health for additional funding to implement this technology within the hospital. This funding was approved and SILS was established in several hospital departments.

Conclusions: This successful initial experience with HTA has paved the way for its routine use by the hospital for informing decisions on the procurement and use of new health technologies.

Objectives: Effective formulary management in healthcare institutions safeguards rational drug use and optimizes health outcomes. We implemented a formulary management program integrating the principles of health technology assessment (HTA) to improve the safe, appropriate, and cost-effective use of medicine in Singapore.

Methods: A 3-year formulary management program was initiated in 2011 in five public healthcare institutions. This program was managed by a project team comprising HTA researchers. The project team worked with institutional pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees to: (i) develop tools for formulary drug review and decision making; (ii) enhance the HTA knowledge and skills of formulary pharmacists and members of P&T committees; (iii) devise a prioritization framework to overcome resource constraints and time pressure; and (iv) conceptualize and implement a framework to review existing formulary.

Results: Tools that facilitate drug request submission, drug review, and decision making were developed for formulary drug inclusion. A systematic framework to review existing formulary was also developed and tested in selected institutions. A competency development plan was rolled out over 2 years to enhance formulary pharmacists’ proficiency in systematic literature search and review, meta-analysis, and pharmacoeconomic evaluation. The plan comprised training workshops and on-the-job knowledge transfer between the project team and institutional formulary pharmacists through collaborating on selected drug reviews. A resource guide that consolidated the tools and templates was published to encourage the adoption of best practices in formulary management.

Conclusions: Based on the concepts of HTA, we implemented an evidence-based approach to optimize formulary management.

Owing to a copyediting error, Marjukka Mäkelä was incorrectly listed as an author in the editorial by Oortwijn & van der Wilt (1) in February/April 2016 issue of International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. The publisher apologizes to the author and readers for this error. The original article has been corrected online to rectify this error.