Objectives: This study aims to analyze the key factors considered for the first application of the National Committee for the Evaluation of Medical Devices (CNEDiMTS) for achieving reimbursement through registration in the list of products and services qualifying for reimbursement (LPPR).

Methods: All the appraisals studied on medical devices (MD) for first inclusion in the LPPR during 2011 and 2012 were retrieved from the French National Authority for Health or Haute Autorité de santé (HAS) Web site. A list of relevant factors was analyzed for each included opinion, followed by univariate and multivariate analyses to highlight the key factors that impacted the expected benefit (EB) provided by HAS.

Results: A total of 151 appraisals were included in the study. Of them, 94 (62 percent) were granted with sufficient EB. The manufacturers were mostly from the United States (36 percent), while most of the applicants were from France (84 percent). After adjusting for other retrieved factors, it was observed that MDs complying with the technical standards, requests supported by opinion(s) from previous generation of MD, and the presence of recommendations or guidelines had more probability to obtain a sufficient EB. A lower probability was related to MDs supported by low-quality studies and with no specific health public benefit.

Conclusions: Our results confirmed that manufacturers seeking reimbursement should be aware of the expectations of the health authorities (level of evidence, technical standard, etc.) and foresee their plan of sending requests for funding so that they can provide evidence of good quality.

Objectives: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) needs to address the challenges posed by high cost, effective technologies, expedited regulatory approaches, and the opportunities provided by collaborative real-world evaluation of technologies. The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum met to consider these issues and the implications for evidence production to inform HTA. This paper shares their discussion to stimulate further debate.

Methods: A background paper, presentations, group discussions, and stakeholder role play at the 2015 HTAi Policy Forum meeting informed this paper.

Results: HTA has an important role to play in helping improve evidence production and ensuring that the health service is ready to adopt effective technologies. It needs to move from simply informing health system decisions to also working actively to align stakeholder expectations about realistic evidence requirements. Processes to support dialogue over the health technology life cycle need to be developed that are mindful of limited resources, operate across jurisdictions and learn from past processes. Collaborations between health technology developers and health systems in different countries should be encouraged to develop evidence that will inform decision making. New analytical techniques emerging for real-world data should be harnessed to support modeling for HTA.

Conclusions: A paradigm shift (to “Health Innovation System 2.0”) is suggested where HTA adopts a more central, proactive role to support alignment within and amongst stakeholders over the whole life cycle of the technology. This could help ensure that evidence production is better aligned with patient and health system needs and so is more effective and efficient.

Objectives: There is widespread commitment—at least in principle—to “evidence-informed” clinical practice and policy development in health care. The intention is that only “appropriate” care ought to be delivered at public expense. Although the rationale for an appropriateness agenda is widely endorsed, and methods have been proposed for addressing it, few published studies exist of contemporary policy initiatives which have actually led to successful disinvestment. Our objective was to explore whether the direct involvement of policy stakeholders could advance appropriateness and disinvestment.

Methods: Several collaborative engagements with policy stakeholders were undertaken to adapt and combine conceptual and empirical material related to appropriateness and disinvestment from the literature to create tools and processes for use in Canada and the province of Ontario in particular.

Results: By combining inputs from the literature with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, a definition of appropriateness was developed and, importantly, endorsed by all the provincial and territorial ministers of health in Canada. Second, a reassessment framework was successfully implemented for identifying priorities for selective disinvestment.

Conclusions: When scientific evidence was combined with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, progress was made on the design and successful implementation of policies for appropriateness and disinvestment.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess incidence, time frame, and outcome of “Coverage with Evidence Development” (CED) decisions in the Swiss Basic Health Insurance scheme.

Methods: Analysis of all controversial medical technologies submitted to review by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) from 1996 to 2012 with focus on decisions with constraints. Description of types of technology, type of initial decision, duration of evaluation period, final decision, and search for potential factors associated with changes over time.

Results: Forty-five (37.5 percent) of 120 controversial health technologies were classified as “yes, in evaluation, reimbursed” for a certain period of time and thirty-five (29.2 percent) as “no, in evaluation, not reimbursed” by the Federal Department of Home Affairs from 1996 to 2012. The rate of CED decisions ranged between zero and nine per year and was influenced by type of technology and calendar year. Forty-four of forty-five decisions were subject to further restrictions, to a “center or a specialist” (76 percent), “indications” (49 percent), “registry” (31 percent), or “other” (49 percent). The time to a final decision ranged from 1.5 to 11 years (median, 6 years). No factors associated with initial decision and final outcome could be identified.

Conclusions: CED as a reality in Switzerland might have enabled patients to obtain access to promising technologies early in their life cycle. CED might have acted as a trigger to a successful implementation of a comprehensive national registry. The lack of qualitative data stresses the urgent need for evaluation of the HTA decisions and their impact on patient outcome and costs.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to profile the health technology assessments (HTAs) produced in Canada and other selected countries and assess their potential to inform policy making about health systems in jurisdictions other than the ones for which they were produced, and to develop and pilot test prototypes for packaging and assessing the relevance of HTAs for health system managers and policy makers.

Methods: We compiled an inventory of all HTAs that were produced by nine HTA agencies between September 2003 and August 2006; coded the title and abstract of each HTA according to the technologies assessed, methods used, and whether or not context-specific actionable messages were provided; developed a prototype for a structured, decision-relevant HTA summary and for a relevance-assessment form; and pilot-tested the prototypes using semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of Canadian healthcare managers and policy makers.

Results: Our review of the 223 HTAs identified that: (i) 44 HTAs addressed health system arrangements (20 percent); (ii) 205 incorporated a systematic review (92 percent), whereas only 12 incorporated a sociopolitical assessment using explicit methods (5 percent); and (iii) 50 contained context-specific actionable messages (22 percent). Our interviews identified significant support for both the general idea of an HTA summary and the prototype's specific elements, but mixed views about using peer assessments of relevance.

Conclusions: Those involved in supporting the use of HTAs in policy making about health systems may wish to produce structured decision-relevant summaries for their systematic review-containing HTAs to increase the prospects for their HTAs being used outside the jurisdiction for which they were produced.

Objectives: The European network on Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) aimed to produce tangible and practical results to be used in the various phases of health technology assessment and to establish a framework and processes to support this. This article presents the background, objectives, and organization of EUnetHTA, which involved a total of sixty-four partner organizations.

Methods: Establishing an effective and sustainable structure for a transnational network involved many managerial, policy, and methodological tools, according to the objective of each task or Work Package. Transparency in organization, financial transactions, and decision making was a key principle in the management of the Project as was the commitment to appropriately involve stakeholders.

Results: EUnetHTA activities resulted in a clear management and governance structure, efficient partnership, and transnational cooperation. The Project developed a model for sustainable continuation of the EUnetHTA Collaboration.

Conclusions: The EUnetHTA Project achieved its goals by producing a suite of practical tools, a strong network, and plans for continuing the work in a sustainable EUnetHTA Collaboration that facilitates and promotes the use of HTA at national and regional levels. Responsiveness to political developments in Europe should be balanced with maintaining a high level of ambition to promote independent, evidence-based information and well-tested tools for best practice based on a strong network of HTA institutions.