National concern about escalating health care costs and inefficiencies in delivery systems has created demand for informatics technology such as decision-support systems. This paper discusses the pressing need for better cost information in health care and how decision-support technology meets this need. Future directions for the technology also are discussed.

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.

Cooperation in midwifery research between Zambia and Sweden is ongoing. Joint studies on gastric suctioning and maternity routines are used as examples, and breastfeeding is discussed from a global perspective. The midwife, who also interprets responses from mothers, is an important member of an assessment team. Cooperation over cultural boundaries is feasible and mutually rewarding.

Efforts to provide the benefits of immunization to the world's children have reached an important crossroad. While remarkable progress has been achieved in successfully administering six important childhood vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, and tuberculosis), the benefits of new vaccines, such as hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B glycoconjugate vaccines, have not been realized except in the most developed countries. The three reasons often cited to explain this problem include poor access to immunization services, the evolution of complex primary immunization schedules, and the additional expense associated with new vaccines, potentially depleting scarce resources. The establishment of the Children's Vaccine Initiative is an organized effort to improve immunization by both technological and organizational innovation. Simplification of the vaccination process can be achieved by developing new combination vaccines or reducing the number of immunizations with vaccines that stimulate protective immune responses. Improvements in the organization of efforts to immunize children will also enhance the prospects of protecting the world's children from infectious diseases. To achieve the goals articulated in the Declaration of New York, the issues of transition from the old to the new vaccines must be addressed. Research on vaccines and technological innovation at all levels will be required to achieve these goals.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish a national Early Awareness and Alert (EAA) system for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies in Italy.

Methods: In 2008, Agenas, a public body supporting Regions and the Ministry of Health (MoH) in health services research, started a project named COTE (Observatory of New and Emerging Health Technologies) with the ultimate aim of implementing a national EAA system. The COTE project involved all stakeholders (MoH, Regions, Industry, Universities, technical government bodies, and Scientific Societies), in defining the key characteristics and methods of the EAA system. Agreement with stakeholders was reached using three separate workshops.

Results: During the workshops, participants shared and agreed methods for identification of new and emerging health technologies, prioritization, and assessment. The structure of the Horizon Scanning (HS) reports was discussed and defined. The main channels for dissemination of outputs were identified as the EuroScan database, and the stakeholders’ Web portals. During the final workshop, Agenas presented the first three HS reports produced at national level and proposed the establishment of a permanent national EAA system.

Conclusions: The COTE Project created the basis for a permanent national EAA system in Italy. An infrastructure to enable the stakeholders network to grow was created, methods to submit new and emerging health technologies for possible evaluation were established, methods for assessment of the technologies selected were defined, and the stakeholders involvement was delineated (in the identification, assessment, and dissemination stages).

Objectives: There has been a rapid growth in the use of patient-assessed outcomes (PAOs) that are measured in the assessment of health technologies. The process of collection of such measures can be costly, and there may be problems associated with the ability of the patient to complete them. The use of electronically stored routine data may reduce costs and overcome the problems associated with patient completion. The feasibility of using routine data surrogates for the UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (UKIBDQ) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) was examined.

Methods: Clinical terms and codes for the UKIBDQ and SF-36 questions were identified, and data from electronic routine sources were sought on patients participating in a randomized controlled trial. The presence or absence of relevant symptoms was used to generate surrogate scores, which were compared with the original scores.

Results: Most questions in the UKIBDQ and SF-36 were codable but only one third of the terms were recorded routinely in electronic form. The surrogate total IBDQ score had reasonable reliability (Kuder–Richardson coefficient = 0.51), but this reliability could not be determined for the SF-36. Intraclass correlations between routine and designed data were poor to weak.

Conclusions: Although electronic routine data sources had the capacity to develop surrogate measures for patient assessed outcomes, there was evidence of wide underutilization of coding systems leading to an underreporting of symptoms. This finding is consistent with previous literature where only poor correlations were illustrated between patient assessed outcomes and surrogate scoring of symptoms.

Objectives: This study proposes the method requirements for a valid costing study in anesthesia to allow differences to be identified between treatments and uses these method requirements to design and conduct a robust costing study.

Methods: A prospective, patient-based costing study was carried out in adult and pediatric day surgery in the United Kingdom. The perspective was that of the National Health Service and the patient. Data were collected for each patient until 7 days after hospital discharge.

Results: Data were collected for 1,063 adults and 322 children undergoing day surgery between October 1999 and January 2001. Statistically significant differences were found only between variable costs, which accounted for 11.4 percent and 9.0 percent of adult and pediatric costs, respectively. There were no differences in length of stay, fixed costs, or semi-fixed costs. Differences were not found in total costs in adults but were found in children. By day 7, postdischarge primary and secondary care costs were not different between groups in either study. No differences were found in costs to patients or parents.

Conclusions: The use of prospective, patient-based cost data enabled the detection of differences in variable costs between difference anesthetic regimens in day surgery. The stochastic nature of the data provided a measure of variability around mean cost estimates. Practice patterns in the study reflected normal practice in the United Kingdom so the costing data have direct clinical relevance. The use of different anesthetic agents only affected variable costs and had no effect on larger cost drivers such as length of stay or staff input.

The article by O'Malley and Jordan (2009) contains fundamental errors and misunderstands the process it claims to describe (4).

The premise of the paper is that the Australian and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN) “was set up to scan the introduction of new and emerging medical technologies into the public sector, with consideration to the private sector.” However, the terms of reference of the policy body (HealthPACT) directing the ANZHSN's activities state that its role is to “provide a forum for monitoring, reviewing, and sharing information regarding health technology to inform service planning and policy development in the public sector” (1). HealthPACT is largely a jurisdictional committee, with representation from the Australian Government, each of its seven states and territories, the New Zealand Health Ministry and district health boards.

Are we in a period of significant change? Is health technology assessment (HTA) undergoing a fundamental transformation? Or should it be? Are we in the middle of a paradigm shift? These are some of the questions the paper by Facey et al in this journal (1) raises about the future of HTA, based on discussions at the HTAi Policy Forum in February 2015. To further share the deliberations of the Forum and with a view to opening this debate among the wider HTA community, a panel within the HTAi 2015 Annual Meeting in Oslo was organized. Presentations at the panel included a summary of the HTAi Policy Forum deliberations and perspectives from a patient, a clinician, and representatives of an HTA organization, industry, and a health system. This letter presents issues and thoughts raised in the panel session.

The aim of Working Group 3 has been to identify possible joint assessments and to coordinate findings and existing resources within the community to support joint assessments.

Recognizing that the “healthcare sector perspective” can be too limited in some situations, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the U.S. Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine all recommend a “societal” perspective in “reference case” cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Although costs of informal caregiving are sometimes included in the CEAs of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) drugs, the benefits and disutility to family members, referred to as “family spillovers” by the U.S. Second Panel, are usually omitted. We estimate that the aggregate cost of family spillovers could be substantial in the USA—on the order of USD 57 billion or over 10 percent of the total economic burden of AD in 2020. Incorporation of family spillovers in AD value frameworks and HTAs is important for comprehensively defining, rewarding, and providing high-value care in AD.