» Articles » PMID: 28303438

Using Health Technology Assessment to Assess the Value of New Medicines: Results of a Systematic Review and Expert Consultation Across Eight European Countries

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2017 Mar 18
PMID 28303438
Citations 98
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

Objective: To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

Methods: A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

Results: All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

Conclusion: More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Citing Articles

Defining the value proposition in diagnostic technology: challenges and opportunities for its understanding and development - a review with a multiperspective reflective analysis.

Soukup T, Zamora-Talaya B, Bahadori S, Luxardo R, Kierkegaard P, Butt O Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 12:1498618.

PMID: 40051729 PMC: 11884263. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1498618.


Healthcare Resource Utilization, Economic Burden, and Multi-Level Medical Security System for Individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Shaanxi Province, China.

Zhao M, Ding S, Zhao Y, Lin C, Han Y Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 13(4).

PMID: 39997303 PMC: 11855159. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13040428.


Validation of the FROM-16 in family members of patients receiving advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP).

Brilliant C, Finlay A, Salek S, Shah R, Bacon E, Laing H Qual Life Res. 2025; .

PMID: 39862357 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03880-0.


From Vision to Reality: The EU's Pharmaceutical Reforms and the Path to Improved Access.

Main C, Schafer C, Kanavos P Pharmacoecon Open. 2025; .

PMID: 39862340 DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00556-w.


How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.

Gentilini A, Rana A Eur J Health Econ. 2024; .

PMID: 39725821 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01748-1.


References
1.
Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, Donaldson C . Decision maker views on priority setting in the Vancouver Island Health Authority. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008; 6:13. PMC: 2507702. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-6-13. View

2.
Antonanzas F . Challenges to achieving value in drug spending in a decentralized country: the Spanish case. Value Health. 2003; 6 Suppl 1:S52-63. DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.6.s1.6.x. View

3.
Raftery J . Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ. 2006; 332(7552):1266-8. PMC: 1471962. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1266. View

4.
Manchikanti L, Falco F, Boswell M, Hirsch J . Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part 2 - implications for interventional pain management. Pain Physician. 2010; 13(1):E55-79. View

5.
Kirkdale R, Krell J, OHanlon Brown C, Tuthill M, Waxman J . The cost of a QALY. QJM. 2010; 103(9):715-20. DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcq081. View