An international joint task group co-led by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) has developed a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA.

The task group, consisting of representatives of leading HTA networks, societies and global organizations, developed guiding principles for the process and followed an established consultation plan with the broader HTA community to develop the definition.

The consensus achieved by the international joint task group brings the collective weight of the participating networks, societies, and organizations behind the new definition.

The new definition of HTA is an historic achievement and it is offered to the current and emerging HTA world as a cornerstone reference for today and into the future.

Traditionally, health technology assessment (HTA) focuses on assessing the impact of pharmaceutical technologies on health and care. Resources are scarce and policy makers aim to achieve effective, accessible health care. eHealth innovations are increasingly more integrated in all healthcare domains. However, how eHealth is assessed prior to its implementation in care practices is unclear. To support evidence-informed policy making, this study aimed to identify frameworks and methods for assessing eHealth's impact on health care.

The scientific literature in five bibliographical databases was systematically reviewed. Articles were included if the study was conducted in a clinical setting, used an HTA framework and assessed an eHealth service. A systematic qualitative narrative approach was applied for analysis and reporting.

Twenty-one HTA frameworks were identified in twenty-three articles. All frameworks addressed outcomes related to the technical performance and functionalities of eHealth service under assessment. The majority also addressed costs (n = 19), clinical outcomes (n = 14), organizational (n = 15) and system level aspects (n = 13). Most frameworks can be classified as dimensional (n = 13), followed by staged (n = 3), hybrid (n = 3), and business modeling frameworks (n = 2). Six frameworks specified assessment outcomes and methods.

HTA frameworks are available for a-priori impact assessment of eHealth services. The frameworks vary in assessment outcomes, methods, and specificity. Demonstrated applicability in practice is limited. Recommendations include standardization of: (i) reporting characteristics of eHealth services, and (ii) specifying assessment outcomes and methods following a stepped-approach tailored to the functional characteristics of eHealth services. Standardization might improve the quality and comparability of eHTA assessments.

While involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly common and important around the world, little is known about the optimal methods of evaluating patients’ involvement (PI) in HTA. This scoping review was undertaken to provide an overview of currently available methods for the evaluation of PI, specifically the impact of PI on HTA recommendations.

A literature search was conducted using nine databases as well as a grey literature search of the websites of 26 organizations related to the conduct, practice or research of HTA to identify articles, reports and abstracts related to the evaluation of PI impact in HTA.

We identified 1,248 unique citations, six of which met our eligibility criteria. These six records (five articles, and one report) were all published after 2012. Four assessed the impact of patient experience submissions on final HTA recommendations; one evaluated the impact of direct involvement on HTA committees, and one assessed impact of multiple forms of involvement. Methods of evaluation included quantitative analyses of reimbursement decisions, qualitative interviews with those directly involved in an assessment, surveys of patient groups and committee members, and the review of HTA reports.

Quantitative evaluation of PI based on associations with funding decisions may not be feasible or fully capture the relevant impact of PI in the assessment of health technologies. Rather, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative strategies may allow for the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of PI on HTA recommendations when possible.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) provides timely, reliable, and affordable access to necessary medicines for Australians. We reviewed the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) submissions and their related outcomes and timelines since 2010.

We examined the PBS Website to identify submissions and their related PBAC outcomes for new medicines, new indications, and new combination products that had been considered by the PBAC since 2010.

Thirty-five PBAC meetings were held during the study period, at which the Committee considered 781 submissions (1,074 medicine/patient population pairings). We saw an increase in the annual number of submissions (medicine/patient population parings). The recommendation rate for the study period was higher than the rejection rate. The annual mean value for the period from the date of initial PBAC recommendation to the date of PBS listing ranged from 357 to 644 days; the annual mean value for the period of the date of PBAC recommendation to the date of PBS listing ranged from 187 to 245 days. It took, on average, 1.70 submissions that included an economic evaluation to obtain a PBAC recommendation. It took more submissions to obtain a PBAC recommendation for a cost-effectiveness analysis submission than it did for a CMA submission. The PBAC was willing to recommend medicines for most acceptable base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) bands, and the majority of the PBAC did not recommended any medicine in the study period that had a base-case ICER >AUD75,000.

The results of our analyses reveal a minor reduction in the period from the date of PBAC recommendation to the date of PBS listing. Several analyses were hampered by a high proportion of missing data.

Despite the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote voluntary cooperation among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, different reimbursement decisions for the same drug are made across European countries. The aim of this paper is to compare the agreement of cancer drug reimbursement decisions using inter-rater reliability measures.

This study is based on primary data on 161 cancer drug reimbursement decisions from nine European countries from 2002 to 2014. To achieve our goal, we use two measures to analyze agreement, in other words, congruency: (i) percentage of agreement and (ii) the κ score.

One main conclusion can be drawn from the analysis. There is a weak to medium agreement among cancer drug decisions in the European countries analyzed (based on the percentage of agreement and the κ score). England and Scotland show the highest consistency between the two measures, showing a medium agreement. These results are in line with previous literature on the congruency of HTA decisions.

This paper contributes to the HTA literature, by highlighting the extent of weak to medium agreement among cancer decisions in Europe.

Physicians' attitudes and adoption behavior toward the delivery of prenatal tests take vital significance for its influence on their professional practice and patient acceptance. This study aimed to identify how physicians have perceived the diffusion of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in China.

A cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2016 to October 2016 in Shanghai, and Fujian and Sichuan Provinces in China. Physicians working on prenatal screening completed a self-report questionnaire. Following Roger's diffusion of innovation model, multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for the following key elements of the theory which influence diffusion: physician-perceived attributes of NIPT, communication channels, the nature of the social system, the extent of change agent (who introduces innovations into a society), promotion efforts, and physicians' benefits from adopting NIPT.

Most specialists had a positive attitude (53.2 percent) toward NIPT, whereas 58.9 percent of physicians had already adopted NIPT in their clinical practice. Physician adoption of NIPT was positively associated with the strength of HTA evidence (p = .03), perceived communication frequency with colleagues (p = .04), adoption by other physicians (p = .07), hospital competition (p = .06), hospital teaching status (p = .02), perceived for-profit genetic testing company's promotion (p < .001), and perceived clinical practice skill improvement (p = .02). However, the adoption behavior toward NIPT may be negatively associated with physician-perceived ethical concerns of NIPT (p = .06).

Obstetricians and gynecologists’ positive perceptions facilitate the adoption of NIPT. Combined with cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening methods, health policy makers can promote the adoption of appropriate, cost-effective prenatal screening in pregnant women.

The aim of the study was to measure the economic impact of informal care (IC) on caregivers assisting myocardial infarction (MI) survivors in France. Health and social impacts were also described.

Data from the prospective 2008 Health and Disabilities Households Survey (Enquête Handicap-Santé), carried out among the French general population, were used to obtain information about patients with MI and their informal caregivers. To estimate the approximate monetary value of IC, three methods were used: the proxy good method, opportunity cost method (OCM), and contingent valuation method (CVM). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the associations of the IC duration and the existence of professional care with the health indicators stated by caregivers.

The analysis included data from 147 caregivers. The mean value of IC ranged from €9,679 per year using the CVM to €11,288 per year using the OCM (p > .05). The mean willingness to pay for an additional hour of IC was €10.9 (SD = 8.3). A total of 46.2 percent of caregivers reported that IC negatively affected theirs physical condition, and 46.3 percent reported that it negatively affected their psychological health. In addition, 40.1 percent declared that caregiving activity made them anxious and 38.8 percent stated they felt alone. Associations were identified between the duration of IC and feeling the need to be replaced, feeling alone and making sacrifices (p < .05).

Informal caregiver burden may be recognized in health technology assessment in order not to underestimate the cost of strategies and to facilitate the comparability of cost-effectiveness outcomes between studies.

The aim of this study was to develop a module which could be used to facilitate the assessment of mobile medical applications (MMA) for regulatory and reimbursement purposes.

In-depth interviews were conducted with policymakers, healthcare practitioners, and application developers to determine possible pathways and impediments to MMA reimbursement. These findings were integrated with our previous research on MMA reimbursement and regulation to create a module that could be used with existing health technology assessment (HTA) methodological frameworks to guide the evaluation of MMAs.

Stakeholders indicated that they trust how traditional medical devices are currently appraised for reimbursement. They were concerned that there was a lack of clarity regarding which entity in the health system was responsible for determining app quality. They were also concerned about the digital health literacy of medical practitioners and patients. Concepts emerging from our previous research were reinforced by the interview findings, including that the connectivity and cybersecurity of apps need to be considered, along with an assessment of software reliability. It is also critical that the credibility of the information presented in apps is assessed as it could potentially mislead patients and clinicians.

An MMA evaluation module was created that would enable an existing HTA process to be adapted for the assessment of MMA technology. These adaptations include making provisions for an assessment of app cybersecurity, the impact on MMA clinical utility of software updates, and compatibility issues. Items to address concerns around practitioner responsibility and app misinformation were also incorporated into the module.

The 2019 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) discussed the role of horizon scanning (HS) and health technology reassessment (HTR) in supporting sustainable healthcare in Asia.

Discussions and presentations at the 2019 HAPF, informed by a literature review, results of a premeeting survey, and case studies of HTA agencies from the region form the basis of this paper.

Five of the fourteen HTA agencies surveyed have established or are developing HS systems (HSSs), and six reported some experience with HTR. Although there were many differences in the respective HSSs, all were proactive and identified technologies within a 1–3-year time horizon. Commonalities included the criteria used to prioritize the technologies including burden and rarity of the disease, and cost to the health system and patients. Experience in HTR was not as extensive with most HTR activity being conducted on an ad hoc basis. Challenges for both HS and HTR include a lack of HTA capacity and good quality data, as well as a need for transparency and collaboration with industry.

With developing universal health care and HTA capacity in many countries in Asia, HS and HTR are in their infancy. Whilst several countries in the region are experienced in all facets of HTA, other countries are developing their HTA skill base. As such, there was a clear appetite for setting up a collaborative network in the Asia region to facilitate information sharing around HTA activities, and more specifically, HS and HTR methodologies, experiences, and assessments.

In Japan, a new cost-effectiveness evaluation system for medicine and medical device pricing was employed in April 2019 after a trial implementation. This study describes the discussions held from April 2016 to March 2019 concerning the newly introduced system.

Using published government documents, discussions with stakeholders, and the minutes of the Chuikyo committee meetings, the following issues are addressed: (i) the results of the trial implementation and (ii) an overview of the newly introduced system.

During the trial implementation, thirteen products were evaluated and their prices adjusted. The process of the new system—which was to be implemented in FY 2019—takes about 15–18 months to complete after listing of the target products by the National Health Insurance. The target products are selected principally based on sales volume, degree of innovation (premium), and disclosure of rationale for price setting. First, a manufacturer submits the cost-effectiveness data, which is then reviewed by the Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (C2H) in collaboration with academics. The results of the cost-effectiveness evaluation are not considered during the decision-making process concerning the product's listing. The price adjustment system is similar to value-based pricing (VBP); hence, the new system can be considered as VBP adjustment.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation can help promote both technological innovation and sustainability of the healthcare system. We need to create a greater capacity for enhancing this academic review system.

The aim of this study was to suggest options for a national and standardized process for the reimbursement of costly drugs provided in Austrian hospitals.

For answering the research questions, reimbursement processes of ten countries were investigated and the strengths and weaknesses of elaborated options of actions were analyzed, resulting in suggestions for solutions in the Austrian reimbursement processes for hospital drugs.

Based on the information derived from the international analysis and the deliberation of the strengths and weaknesses on optional approaches, as well as, on the consideration of the existing reimbursement processes in Austria, three options to reorganize the current decentralized inpatient reimbursement process in Austria were suggested. The first option presents a process following the established processes of the decision making for outpatient drugs. The second option suggests stronger coordination of and cooperation across the existing processes of the nine regional “Pharmaceutical and Therapeutics Committees”. The third option proposes to expand the already established reimbursement process for non-drug interventions.

Evidence-based, transparent, fair and efficient resource allocations are needed for priority setting decisions. However, a decision process can be based on the best available evidence, can be fair and transparent, although it might be substantially more time-consuming. Thus, a pragmatic balance between quality, transparency and timeliness is crucial.