Stakeholders' Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria.

Background: In recent years, involvement of healthcare stakeholders in health technology assessment (HTA) has been discussed as helping the inclusion of social values in the decision-making process. The aim of our research was to identify and compare details from Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria on their stakeholders' involvement in the HTA process. Information was sought on their identification, responsibilities, and regulation. Methods: We conducted a survey of seven types of stakeholders in the healthcare systems of Kazakhstan, Poland, and Bulgaria. They included patients and the public, providers, purchasers, payers, policy makers, product makers, and principal investigators. They were questioned on their involvement in the HTA process, and on the objectives of their participation. Results: Levels of involvement of different kinds of stakeholder varied between countries, reflecting political and administrative developments. There was full or partial agreement on the objectives of stakeholder participation. All respondents agreed that representatives of the ministry of health should be involved in selection of stakeholders for HTA. Conclusion: Progress has been made in the involvement of stakeholders, with interest in further development in all three countries.

Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan: 3 years' experience of one unit.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the development and activities of the Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) Unit in the Hospital of the President's Affairs Administration, one of the first examples of the implementation of HB-HTA into the practice of Kazakhstani hospitals. METHODS: Details of the development of the Unit were obtained from the hospital's administrative records. The Unit's own records were used to describe the reports prepared and the clinical areas that were covered. Responses to recommendations in the Unit's reports were obtained from hospital administration and individual departments. Estimates of savings and payback periods were based on data from the hospital information system, and data submitted by manufacturers and distributors of medical equipment. RESULTS: Fifty-one rapid- and mini-HTA reports were prepared by the Unit from 2015 to 2017. Seventeen health technologies (33 percent) were not recommended for implementation in hospital practice. Refusal to implement sixteen of these technologies saved approximately 1,053,500 USD. Of the thirty-four recommended health technologies, twenty-four were implemented to treat or diagnose 1,376 patients, and eight others were included in plans for 2018-20. Of the twenty-four implemented health technologies, twelve did not require additional investments. The payback period of investments for the other twelve implemented technologies is not more than 3 years for six, less than 5 years for four, and more than 10 years for two technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Establishment of the HB-HTA Unit in the hospital created the basis for making informed managerial decisions; identifying key directions for strategic development; and improving hospital management.

A PROCESS OF PRIORITIZING TOPICS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN KAZAKHSTAN.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop criteria for the prioritization of topics for health technology assessment (HTA) in the healthcare system of Kazakhstan. METHODS: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion. RESULTS: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal, and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion, a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to 1 (Low). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to a selection of topics, and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA program in Kazakhstan. A method for HTA prioritization has been developed that is easy to apply, requires comparatively few resources, and is compatible with processes required by the MoH.