Objective: To enhance the validity of a well-known expert panel process, we used data from patient surveys to identify and correct rating errors.

Methods: We used the two-round RAND/UCLA panel method to rate indications of harmful (presence of problems), hazardous (at risk for problems), and nonhazardous (no known risks) drinking in older adults. Results from the panel provided guidelines for classifying older individuals as harmful, hazardous, or nonhazardous drinkers, using a survey. The classifications yielded unexpectedly high numbers of harmful and hazardous drinkers. We hypothesized possible misclassifications of drinking risks and used the survey data to identify indications that may have led to invalid ratings. We modified problematic indications and asked three clinician panelists to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the modifications in a third panel round. We revised the indications based on panelist response and reexamined drinking classifications.

Results: Using the original indications, 48% of drinkers in the sample were classified as harmful, 31% as hazardous, and 21% as nonhazardous. A review of the indications revealed framing bias in the original rating task and vague definitions of certain symptoms and conditions. The modified indications resulted in classifications of 22% harmful, 47% hazardous, and 31% nonhazardous drinkers.

Conclusions: Analysis of survey data led to identification and correction of specific errors occurring during the panel-rating process. The validity of the RAND/UCLA method can be enhanced using data-driven modifications.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the social, cultural and economic factors which have led to the present pattern of technology utilization in Japan. It is divided into five sections. The first provides the historical framework; the second, an overview of the health care delivery context and its economic incentive structure; the third, an analysis of the various contenders involved in the process of resource allocation; the fourth, a description of the technology areas which have been emphasized in Japan; and the fifth, an examination of future issues.

According to the HTA-Europe report, health technology assessment (HTA) has the potential to influence health policy in the fields of research and development, regulation of pharmaceuticals, devices, and services, quality assurance, reimbursement, education and training of healthcare providers, and consumer education (1). To identify and bridge the gaps between HTA production and implementation, the goal of Working Group 6 was to approach the use of HTA in policy and practice on the aggregate policy level as well as in the local context, such as in hospitals. Members of Working Group 6 included both users (e.g., members of decision-making bodies) and producers (e.g., members of HTA agencies) of HTA reports. The aim of the working group was to identify three types of information on HTA implementation and impact. These included identifying successful examples of the implementation of HTA results, examples of structures that require HTA information as part of the decision-making process, and finally, identifying groups and persons who use HTA frequently and are willing to share their experiences with other HTA users and producers.

Until now, no systematic strategy for the prevention of major hemoglobinopathies has been implemented in southeastern France, in spite of frequencies of β-thalassemia trait and HbS trait as high as 2·5–8% in some ethnic populations. The purpose of the study was to help a group of experts, brought together by the Regional Center for Disease Control, to reach a consensus about screening for carriers of heterozygote hemoglobinopathies. A multicriteria decision-analysis model was used to take into account not only the costs and effectiveness of potential screening strategies, but also five other qualitative criteria: technical and practical feasibilities, ethical acceptability, information follow-up in time, and global impact on health education. Conclusions differ significatively from those of a pure costeffectiveness analysis, but a multicriteria approach seems best suited to medical experts' preferences.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and methods of expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) for specifying input parameters in health economic decision models (HEDM).

Methods: We created two samples using the National Health System Economic Evaluations Database: (1) 100 randomly selected HEDM studies to determine prevalence of EKE and (2) sixty studies using a formal EKE process to determine methods used.

Results: Fifty-seven (57 percent) of the random sample included at least one EKE-derived parameter. Of these, six (10 percent) used a formal expert process. Thirty-four studies from our second sample of sixty studies (57 percent) described at least one aspect of the process (e.g., elicitation method) with reasonable clarity. In approximately two-thirds of studies the external experts estimated parameters de novo; the remainder confirmed or modified initial estimates provided by authors, or the method was unclear. The majority of elicitations obtained point estimates only, although a few studies asked experts to estimate ranges of parameter values.

Conclusions: The use of EKE for parameter estimation is common in HEDMs, although there is room for improvement in the methods used.

Objective: To analyze evolution of the health technology assessment (HTA) at the national level in South Korea.

Methods: Analysis of public documents, personal communication, and literative review.

Results: HTA in South Korea has been developed since 1990s, first introduced by academia and institutionalized within the National Health Insurance (NHI). Rapidly increasing expenditure had been a challenge of the NHI, which considered health technology management as a cost controlling measure. An amendment was made to the NHI Law in 2000, and provision was made to regulate the process of determining new insurance benefits including procedures, drugs, and equipment. This requirement made the NHI agencies to promote HTA approaches in connection with the government and professional organizations. Also the Healthcare Act was revised in October 2006 ruling that HTA focusing on safety and effectiveness be responsible for new health technologies. Currently, the HTA process is governed by a governmental committee comprising twenty members and technically supported by the HTA center created in the NHI structure.

Conclusions: Institutionalized HTA in Korea has been driven mainly by the requirements of the NHI and manifested strengths as well as weaknesses. The government is establishing a new organization for HTA, independent from the NHI.

In economic evaluation, the healthcare perspective has gradually given way to use of the societal perspective, as this perspective is often advocated for support in making optimal societal decisions. In practice, economic evaluations conducted from the societal perspective ignore, fail to measure and/or fail to monetize many of the costs that fall outside of the healthcare sector. To limit bias and increase decision-supportive power, researchers could strengthen their evaluations by adhering to a few basic principles. Five “pillars for the societal perspective” are proposed. First, who bears the cost and who does not is irrelevant. Second, it is imperative to consider including costs for sectors outside the healthcare sector. Third, both high frequent costs and costs with high unit prices should be considered. Fourth, double counting should be avoided. And fifth, researchers should reflect on choices related to costs, i.e. cost omission and problems with identifying, measuring, and valuing costs.

Objectives: Examine the validity of using a self-completed Stated Preference Discrete Choice Modeling (SPDCM) questionnaire to measure parents' preferences for vaccinating their children against varicella.

Methods: A qualitative approach was used to assess the way parents understood the technical information in the questionnaire and the factors they considered to be important to the immunization decision. After completion of the SPDCM questionnaire, thirty-four participants completed a semistructured interview by telephone. Interview transcripts were analyzed by using content analysis. Comparisons were then made with the SPDCM questionnaire results.

Results: The technical information used to describe the program attributes appeared to be used appropriately by participants, although their explanations indicated that their understanding did not always come from the questionnaire information. Only one participant appeared to misunderstand the stated preference task, and a small number thought that the complexity and length should be reduced. The results of analysis of the questionnaire data were supported by the qualitative study, with the notable features of the model being reflected in the views commonly expressed about the immunization decision. Several additional factors were identified as important to the choice, including beliefs about vaccination generally and perceptions of the seriousness of varicella.

Conclusions: Although more research is required to investigate the validity of SPDCM for the measurement of preferences in health care, this study supports the validity of its use in childhood immunization where parents are familiar with the decision context.

By introducing discounting in the DEALE method, we reanalyze a recent publication on the cost-effectiveness of early thrombolytic therapy with intracoronary streptokinase after acute myocardial infarction. We show that failure to discount gains in life expectancy results in a serious overestimation of the cost-effectiveness of this technology.

An overview of published studies on three common cancers in childhood was conducted to estimate the effectiveness and consequences of treatment. Of 1,016 separate citations, 316 were reviewed in detail but only 162 were deemed to be “useful.” An approach to a structured appraisal of the literature is presented.

We consider the nature of technology assessment and then briefly summarize technology assessment activities in five countries: Canada, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Drawing from these examples, we then identify determinants of the emergence and impact of technology assessment.

Health technology assessment (HTA) aims, through empirical analysis, to shed light on the value of health technologies (O’Rourke et al. [2020, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 36, 187–90]). HTA is, then, where facts and values meet. But how, where, and when do facts and values meet in HTA? Currently, HTA is usually portrayed as a sequential process, starting with empirical analysis (assessment), followed by a deliberation on the implications of the findings for a judgment of a health technology’s value (appraisal). In this paper, we will argue that in HTA, empirical analysis and normative inquiry are much more closely entwined. In fact, as we hope to show, normative commitments act as an indispensable guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical evidence. Drawing on policy sciences, we will suggest a concrete methodology that can help HTA practitioners to integrate empirical analysis and normative inquiry in a transparent way. The proposed methodology can be conceived as a concrete means for conducting a scoping exercise in HTA. Moreover, it offers a distinct way of giving stakeholders a structural and constructive role in HTA. This paper outlines the approach developed by the values in doing assessments of health technologies project, a project funded by the Erasmus+ program (contract number 2018-1-NL01-KA203-038960), which is the European Union’s program to support education, training, youth, and sport in Europe. The project has resulted in an E-learning course, an accompanying handbook, and a consensus statement, all freely available from the project’s website www.validatehta.eu.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to analyze the quality and transferability issues reported in published peer-reviewed English-language economic evaluations based in healthcare settings of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) and former Soviet countries.

Methods: A systematic search of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions was performed for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. The included studies were assessed according to their characteristics, quality (using Drummond's checklist), use of local data, and the transferability of inputs and results, if addressed.

Results: Most of the thirty-four economic evaluations identified were conducted from a healthcare or payer perspective (74 percent), with 47 percent of studies focusing on infectious diseases. The least frequently and transparently addressed parameters were the items’ stated perspectives, relevant costs included, accurately measured costs in appropriate units, outcomes and costs credibly valued, and uncertainties addressed. Local data were often used to assess unit costs, baseline risk, and resource usage, while jurisdiction-specific utilities were included in only one study. Only 32 percent of relevant studies discussed the limitations of using foreign data, and 36 percent of studies discussed the transferability of their own study results to other jurisdictions.

Conclusions: Transferability of the results is not sufficiently discussed in published economic evaluations. To simplify the transferability of studies to other jurisdictions, the following should be comprehensively addressed: uncertainty, impact of influential parameters, and data transferability. The transparency of reporting should be improved.

Evaluating the use of resources as well as outcomes in cancer therapy is increasingly becoming recognized by both clinicians and others as a legitimate and indeed even desirable activity. While this trend is to be welcomed if it facilitates the efficient use of resources for cancer care, there are dangers in applying estimates of unit costs, in particular average costs to the evaluation of trends in practice in cancer therapies. This article examines the use of appropriate measures of average and marginal cost in the economic evaluation of developments in cancer therapy, taking illustrations from radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Background: In August 2002, an application for the listing on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) of PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy (formally M2A®) as a diagnostic procedure for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) was made to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). As a result of this application, in May 2004 PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy was approved with interim funding until April 2007. This funding was conditional on the collection of Australian data on the long-term safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of capsule endoscopy.

Methods: A review was conducted of how the data were collected, the methodological difficulties associated with the collection and analysis of the data, and the outcomes of the data.

Results: The PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy Register ran from 2004 to 2007 and amassed data on 4,099 patients forming the largest database on PillCam® in the world. Based on these data, in November 2007, MSAC recommended that full public funding be supported under the current MBS Item Number 11820 as capsule endoscopy is as safe as and more effective than comparable diagnostic tests. It is the preferred choice of patients and has the potential to reduce the number and cost of previous investigations.

Conclusions: This form of CED proved to be ideally suited to PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy. The PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy Register provided data that made it possible to validate assumptions used in the economic modeling in the assessment carried out for MSAC in response to the application for funding.

Discussion: The use of interim funding requires both risk and cost sharing among the key players: industry, government, the medical profession, and the hospitals. Although the characteristics of PillCam® Capsule Endoscopy proved to be suited to data collection, this may not be the case with other emerging health technologies. If interim funding coupled with data collection is to become an effective mechanism for bridging the evidence gap, work needs to be carried out by health technology assessment agencies to provide guidance on the design of registers so that they cater for the unique characteristics of individual procedures.

The treatment of prostate cancer was reviewed at a U.S. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference in June 1987. Data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registries were analyzed and showed that the proportion of eligible prostate cancer patients receiving the recommended therapies did not increase at a faster rate after the conference than before.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of ethical considerations in health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: The study consisted of two complementary approaches: (a) a systematic review of the literature; and (b) an eighteen-item online survey that was distributed to fifty-six HTA agencies affiliated with the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: The review identified twenty-six relevant articles. The most often cited barriers in the literature were: scarcity, heterogeneity and complexity of ethical analysis methods; challenges in translating ethical analysis results into knowledge that is useful for decision makers; and lack of organizational support in terms of required expertise, time and financial resources. The most frequently cited facilitators included: usage of value-based appraisal methods, stakeholder and public engagement, enhancement of practice guidelines, ethical expertise, and educational interventions.

Representatives of twenty-six (46.5 percent) agencies from nineteen countries completed the survey. A median of 10 percent (interquartile range, 5 percent to 50 percent) of the HTA products produced by the agencies was reported to include an assessment of ethical aspects. The most commonly perceived barriers were: limited ethical knowledge and expertise, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in finding ethical evidence or using ethical guidelines. Educational interventions, demand by policy makers, and involvement of ethicists in HTA were the most commonly perceived facilitators.

Conclusions: Our results emphasize the importance of simplification of ethics methodology and development of good practice guidelines in HTA, as well as capacity building for engaging HTA practitioners in ethical analyses.