Overcoming Barriers in Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA): International Expert Panel Consensus.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the common facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) across diverse hospital settings in seven countries. Through a two-round Delphi study, insights were gathered from a panel of 15 HTA specialists from France, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Poland, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Experts initially conducted a comprehensive review of the HB-HTA implementation in their respective countries, identifying the barriers and facilitators through descriptive analysis. Subsequently, panel experts ranked these identified barriers and facilitators on a seven-point Likert scale. A median agreement score ≥ 6 and interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1 was accepted as reaching a consensus. Out of the 12 statements categorized as external and internal barriers and facilitators, the expert panel reached consensus on six statements (two barriers and four facilitators). The external barrier, which achieved consensus, was the lack of the formal recognition of the role of HB-HTA in national or regional legislations. The internal barrier reaching consensus was the limited availability of human resources dedicated to HB-HTA. This qualitative study indicates that HB-HTA still has progress to make before being formally accepted and integrated across most countries, although by building on the facilitating factors we identified there may be an opportunity for the implementation of internationally developed strategies to strengthen HB-HTA practices.

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted much attention because of its enormous potential in healthcare, but uptake has been slow. There are substantial barriers that challenge health technology assessment (HTA) professionals to use AI-generated evidence for decision-making from large real-world databases (e.g., based on claims data). As part of the European Commission-funded HTx H2020 (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, we aimed to put forward recommendations to support healthcare decision-makers in integrating AI into the HTA processes. The barriers, addressed by the paper, are particularly focusing on Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where the implementation of HTA and access to health databases lag behind Western European countries. Methods: We constructed a survey to rank the barriers to using AI for HTA purposes, completed by respondents from CEE jurisdictions with expertise in HTA. Using the results, two members of the HTx consortium from CEE developed recommendations on the most critical barriers. Then these recommendations were discussed in a workshop by a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision-makers from both CEE countries and Western European countries, and summarized in a consensus report. Results: Recommendations have been developed to address the top 15 barriers in areas of (1) human factor-related barriers, focusing on educating HTA doers and users, establishing collaborations and best practice sharing; (2) regulatory and policy-related barriers, proposing increasing awareness and political commitment and improving the management of sensitive information for AI use; (3) data-related barriers, suggesting enhancing standardization and collaboration with data networks, managing missing and unstructured data, using analytical and statistical approaches to address bias, using quality assessment tools and quality standards, improving reporting, and developing better conditions for the use of data; and (4) technological barriers, suggesting sustainable development of AI infrastructure. Conclusion: In the field of HTA, the great potential of AI to support evidence generation and evaluation has not yet been sufficiently explored and realized. Raising awareness of the intended and unintended consequences of AI-based methods and encouraging political commitment from policymakers is necessary to upgrade the regulatory and infrastructural environment and knowledge base required to integrate AI into HTA-based decision-making processes better.

Guidance on using real-world evidence from Western Europe in Central and Eastern European health policy decision making.

Aim: Real-world data and real-world evidence (RWE) are becoming more important for healthcare decision making and health technology assessment. We aimed to propose solutions to overcome barriers preventing Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries from using RWE generated in Western Europe. Materials & methods: To achieve this, following a scoping review and a webinar, the most important barriers were selected through a survey. A workshop was held with CEE experts to discuss proposed solutions. Results: Based on survey results, we selected the nine most important barriers. Multiple solutions were proposed, for example, the need for a European consensus, and building trust in using RWE. Conclusion: Through collaboration with regional stakeholders, we proposed a list of solutions to overcome barriers on transferring RWE from Western Europe to CEE countries.

Development of transferability guidance for integrated care models with special focus on Central and Eastern European countries.

AIM: To develop pragmatic recommendations for Central and Eastern European (CEE) policymakers about transferability assessment of integrated care models established in higher income European Union (EU) countries. METHODS: Draft recommendations were developed based on Horizon 2020-funded SELFIE project deliverables related to 17 promising integrated care models for multimorbid patients throughout Europe, as well as on an online survey among CEE stakeholders on the relevance of implementation barriers. Draft recommendations were discussed at the SELFIE transferability workshop and finalized together with 22 experts from 12 CEE countries. RESULTS: Thirteen transferability recommendations are provided in three areas. Feasibility of local implementation covers the identification and prioritization of implementation barriers and proposals for potential solutions. Performance measurement of potentially transferable models focuses on the selection of models with proven benefits and assurance of performance monitoring. Transferability of financing methods for integrated care explores the relevance of financing methodologies and planning of adequate initial and long-term financing. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of international integrated care models cannot be recommended without evidence on its local feasibility or scientifically sound and locally relevant performance assessment in the country of origin. However, if the original financing method is not transferable to the target region, development of a locally relevant alternative financing method can be considered.

The transferability of health technology assessment: the European perspective with focus on central and Eastern European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries. AREAS COVERED: Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues. EXPERT OPINION: Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

Quo Vadis HTA for Medical Devices in Central and Eastern Europe? Recommendations to Address Methodological Challenges.

Objectives: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of medical devices (MDs) may be different for early and late technology adopter countries, as well as the potential health technology assessment (HTA) solutions to tackle them. This study aims to provide guidance to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries on how to address key challenges of HTA for MDs with special focus on the transferability of scientific evidence. Methods: As part of the COMED Horizon 2020 project, a comprehensive list of issues related to MD HTA were identified based on a targeted literature review. Health technology assessment issues which pose a greater challenge or require different solutions in late technology adopter countries were selected. Draught recommendations to address these issues were developed and discussed in a focus group. The recommendations were then validated with a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision makers from CEE countries in May and June 2020. Results: A consolidated list of 11 recommendations were developed in 3 major areas: (1) clinical value assessment, focusing on the use of joint EU work, relying on real-world evidence, use of coverage with evidence development schemes, transferring evidence from foreign countries and addressing the challenges of learning curve and centre effect; (2) economic value assessment, covering cost calculation of complex medical devices and transferability of economic evaluations of MDs; (3) HTA processes, related to the frequent product modifications and various indications of MDs. Conclusions: Central and Eastern European countries with limited resources for conducting HTA, can benefit from HTA methods and evidence generated in early technology adopter countries. Considering the appropriate reuse of international HTA materials, late technology adopter countries can still implement HTA, even for MDs, which have a more limited evidence base compared with pharmaceuticals.

Health Technology Assessment Implementation in Ukraine: Current Status and Future Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: The need for improving healthcare decision making by implementing health technology assessment (HTA) has been a top priority in Ukraine since 2016. This study sought to provide a tailor-made HTA implementation roadmap, drawing on insights from national stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a survey using a questionnaire already applied in previous HTA research. We assessed the status of HTA when reforms were initiated in 2016 and examined perspectives on possible future developments among policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies and patient organizations. RESULTS: Thirty-two respondents answered the survey. Forty-eight percent of respondents were not aware of HTA training in Ukraine, but 91 percent preferred having either a graduate or postgraduate training. Experts stated that funding for HTA research and for critical appraisal of HTA submissions was limited, but in the future, they would increase funding mainly from public sources. A public HTA agency with academic support was the most preferred organizational structure. Eighty-eight percent of respondents opted for full transparency, making the HTA agency's recommendations and the related appraisal reports publicly available. A great majority of participants preferred mandating the use of local data in certain categories and indicated the importance of evaluating the transferability of international evidence. Healthcare priority and cost-effectiveness were the most important criteria for decisions, applied with a soft explicit threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ukraine is in the early phase of implementing HTA and our study provides a clear vision of national stakeholders about the future directions. In addition, learning from the experiences of other countries may help the implementation process.

A Review of Rare Disease Policies and Orphan Drug Reimbursement Systems in 12 Eurasian Countries.

Background: Despite international initiatives on collaboration within the field of rare diseases, patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) and healthcare services differ greatly between countries. This study aimed to create a comprehensive and in-depth overview of rare diseases policies and reimbursement of OMPs in a selection of 12 countries in the Western Eurasian region: Armenia, France, Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed and an analysis of publicly available legislative and rare disease health policy data was undertaken in five focus areas: rare disease definition, newborn screening, registries, national plans, access to/reimbursement of OMPs. Results: Screening programs are broadly implemented but the number of screened diseases differs significantly (2-35 diseases), either between EU and non-EU countries, between EU member states and sometimes even within a single country. In most countries rare disease registries are operating with regional, national, European or worldwide coverage. The number of rare disease registries is growing, as a result of the National Plans (EU) and increased international scientific cooperation. France, Russia, and Poland have a centrally acting registry. National plans are present in all EU countries but implementation varies and is ongoing. The number of reimbursed OMPs in the selected countries ranges from nearly all available OMPs in the Netherlands, Germany, and France to zero in Armenia. Reimbursement rules differ considerably regionally and a trend is observed of reimbursement conditions getting stricter for expensive (orphan) drugs. Discussion: Inequality in patient access to new OMPs still exists due to variations in national policies, healthcare budgets, health insurance, and reimbursement systems. The observed differences are challenging for rare disease patients, health authorities and manufacturers alike. Progress can be seen, however, and international cooperation and harmonization is slowly but steadily expanding in the rare disease arena.