Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare evidence requirements for health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals by national agencies across Europe responsible for reimbursement decisions focusing specifically on relative effectiveness assessment.

Methods: Evidence requirements from thirty-three European countries were requested and twenty-nine national agencies provided documents to review. Data were extracted from national documents (manufacturer's submission templates and associated guidance) into a purpose-made framework with categories covering information about the health condition, the technology, clinical effectiveness and safety.

Results: The level of detail in the required evidence varies considerably across countries. Some countries include specific questions while others request information under general headings. Some countries include all information in a single document, which may or may not include guidance on how to complete the template. Others have specific guidance documents or methods and process manuals that help with the completion of the submission templates. Despite differences in quantity and detail, the content of the evidence requirements is broadly similar. All countries ask for information on the health technology, target disease, and clinical effectiveness and safety. However, one country only requests clinical effectiveness information as part of cost-effectiveness analyses. We found twenty-six evidence requirements for which generic answers may apply across borders and nineteen in which countries requested nationally specific information.

Conclusions: This work suggests that it would be possible to put together a minimum set of evidence requirements for HTA to support reimbursement decisions across Europe which could facilitate collaboration between jurisdictions.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate originator pharmaceutical companies’ practices in relation to health technology assessment (HTA) and the views and perceptions of their executives on the importance of HTA in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Greece.

Methods: A qualitative study was performed, using individual semi-structured interviews based on an interview schedule with open-ended questions. The target population was market access departments’ executives of originator pharmaceutical companies. Our target sample consisted of sixteen executives, of whom ten agreed to participate. Saturation point was reached after eight interviews. Data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis.

Results: Participants considered HTA as a very important complementary tool for decision making in health policy, particularly in the field of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. They believed that, in Greece, HTA could be institutionalized for the reimbursement mechanism of medicines under certain conditions relating to current health policy-making attitudes and conditions pertaining in the country. They considered that there are many constraints which must be overcome as well as opportunities to be exploited.

Conclusions: Decisions in pharmaceutical policy should be scientifically substantiated and HTA should be institutionalized primarily for reimbursement decisions. Development of guidelines for conducting pharmaco-economic evaluation, change in health policy goals, recording of cost and epidemiological data, and broader participation of all stakeholders in HTA decision-making processes are suggested as prerequisites for a successful implementation of HTA in Greece.

Objectives: A linked evidence approach (LEA) is the synthesis of systematically acquired evidence on the accuracy of a medical test, its impact on clinical decision making and the effectiveness of consequent treatment options. We aimed to assess the practical utility of this methodology and to develop a decision framework to guide its use.

Methods: As Australia has lengthy experience with LEA, we reviewed health technology assessment (HTA) reports informing reimbursement decisions by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (August 2005 to March 2012). Eligibility was determined according to predetermined criteria and data were extracted on test characteristics, evaluation methodologies, and reported difficulties. Fifty percent of the evidence-base was independently analyzed by a second reviewer.

Results: Evaluations of medical tests for diagnostic (62 percent), staging (27 percent), and screening (6 percent) purposes were available for eighty-nine different clinical indications. Ninety-six percent of the evaluations used either the full LEA methodology or an abridged version (where evidence is linked through to management changes but not patient outcomes). Sixty-one percent had the full evidence linkage. Twenty-five percent of test evaluations were considered problematic; all involving LEA (n = 22). Problems included: determining test accuracy with an imperfect reference standard (41 percent); assessing likely treatment effectiveness in test positive patients when the new test is more accurate than the comparator (18 percent); and determining probable health benefits in those symptomatic patients ruled out using the test (13 percent). A decision framework was formulated to address these problems.

Conclusions: LEA is useful for evaluating medical tests but a stepped approach should be followed to determine what evidence is required for the synthesis.

Background: To ensure rapid access to new potentially beneficial health technologies, obtain best value for money, and ensure affordability, healthcare payers are adopting a range of innovative reimbursement approaches that may be called Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs).

Methods: The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum sought to identify why MEAs might be used, issues associated with implementation and develop principles for their use. A 2-day deliberative workshop discussed key papers, members' experiences, and collectively addressed four policy questions that resulted in this study.

Results: MEAs are used to give access to new technologies where traditional reimbursement is deemed inappropriate. Three different forms of MEAs have been identified: management of budget impact, management of uncertainty relating to clinical and/or cost-effectiveness, and management of utilization to optimize performance. The rationale for using these approaches and their advantages and disadvantages differ. However, all forms of MEA should take the form of a formal written agreement among stakeholders, clearly identifying the rationale for the agreement, aspects to be assessed, methods of data collection and review, and the criteria for ending the agreement.

Conclusions: MEAs should only be used when HTA identifies issues or concerns about key outcomes and/or costs and/or organizational/budget impacts that are material to a reimbursement decision. They provide patient access and can be useful to manage technology diffusion and optimize use. However, they are administratively complex and may be difficult to negotiate and their effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.

When new medical technologies enter the market, there is often uncertainty about the added value for the patient and for society, hampering well-considered decision making about reimbursement. Current Belgian legislation already offered opportunities for the managed uptake of possibly innovative emerging implants. However, it has also some shortcomings such as the lack of a clear research design, rendering the scientific evaluation of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patient or organizational issues more difficult. Against this background, a new procedure was elaborated by the Belgian health insurance institute and the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.

The aim of this article is to report the results of a study examining salaried payment for general practitioners (GPs) in Scotland. The study examines ‘paragraph 52’ salaried payment, where GPs can employ a GP as a member of practice staff and claim reimbursement from the health board. The paper reports results of 18 semi-structured interviews with managers at two health boards, and at seven general practices who have a salaried GP. The paper also presents quantitative data about the nature of the salaried contracts and presents a comparison of practices with a salaried GP with other practices in Scotland. Seventeen practices employed a salaried GP 18 months after the scheme began. Ex-fundholders and training practices were more likely to have been selected by health boards to employ a salaried GP. The two health boards took different approaches to the scheme. The first selected those practices that were more likely to have identified specific service developments as part of their bid for a salaried GP. This approach might reward those practices that were already innovative, thus potentially increasing inequality in service provision between practices. The second health board used the scheme to maintain and support practices in rural areas, and was less concerned with service development, thus potentially reducing inequalities in access. Salaried GPs were ex-GP registrars and ex-locums who wanted more stability and less responsibility, and administration. Some were happy in their post, while others saw it as a stepping stone to a partnership. Most practices used the salaried GP to release the time of partners to engage in practice development. Some practices mentioned the financial benefits of the scheme and benefits in terms of enabling service development. Compared to using locums, it was suggested that referral rates of salaried GPs may be lower, and continuity of care higher. Participants felt strongly that the scheme should continue. The paragraph 52 scheme was used little, but was potentially valuable in introducing stability and experience for younger GPs who do not want a partnership. Health boards had different interpretations of the objectives and use of the scheme reflecting different local circumstances. The potential of the scheme to address inequalities in the distribution of GPs is uncertain.