Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook".

BACKGROUND: To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative. METHODS: The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (i.e., potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting. RESULTS: An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game). CONCLUSION: The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Active management of existing health technologies (e.g., devices, diagnostic, and/or medical procedures) to ensure the delivery of high value care is increasingly recognized around the world. A number of initiatives have raised awareness of technologies that may be overused, mis-used, or potentially harmful by compiling them into lists of low value care. However, despite the growing number of lists, changes to local healthcare practices remain challenging for many systems. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a process, leveraging existing initiatives and data assets, to produce a list of prioritized low value technologies for health technology reassessment (HTR). METHODS: An expert advisory committee comprised of clinical experts and health system decision-makers was convened to determine key process requirements. Once developed, the process was piloted to assess feasibility in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). RESULTS: The expert advisory committee identified five required attributes for the process: data-driven, routine and replicable, actionable, stakeholder collaboration, and high return on investment. Guided by these attributes, a 5-step process was developed. First, over 1300 published low value technologies (i.e., from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] "do not do" recommendations, low value technologies in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, and Choosing Wisely "Top 5" lists) were identified. Using appropriate coding systems for BC's administrative health data (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD]), the low value technologies were queried to examine frequencies and costs of technology use. This information was used to rank potential candidates for reassessment based on high annual budgetary impact. Lastly, clinical experts reviewed the ranked technologies prior to broad dissemination and stakeholder action. Pilot testing of the process in BC resulted in the prioritization of 9 initial candidate technologies for reassessment. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first account of a systematic approach to move a collective body of low value technology recommendations into action in a healthcare setting. This work demonstrates the feasibility and strength of using administrative data to identify and prioritize low value technologies for HTR at a population-level.

UNTANGLING, UNBUNDLING, AND MOVING FORWARD: FRAMING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY REASSESSMENT IN THE CHANGING CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a policy process to manage health technologies throughout their lifecycle and ensure their ongoing optimal use. However, within an ever-evolving field, HTR is only one of many concepts associated with the optimization of health technologies. There is limited understanding of how other concepts and processes might differ and/or be interrelated. This study aims to describe the concepts underlying the various technology optimization processes and to reconcile their relationships within the HTR process. METHODS: A synthesis of the literature on approaches to HTR was completed. An inductive synthesis approach was completed to catalogue common concepts and themes. Expert stakeholders were consulted to develop a schematic to diagrammatically depict the relationships among concepts and frame them within the HTR process. RESULTS: A practical schematic was developed. Common concepts and themes were organized under six major domains that address the following discussion questions: (i) what is the value of the existing technology?; (ii) what is the current utilization gap?; (iii) what are the available tools and resources?; (iv) what are the levers for change?; (v) what is the desired outcome?; and (vi) who are the foundational actors? CONCLUSIONS: Using these six questions to frame the issues faced by HTR will advance the common understanding of HTR, as well as improve implementation of HTR initiatives. These questions will clearly identify the process required to move forward within a complex healthcare system.

Comparison of Canadian public medication insurance plans and the impact on out-of-pocket costs.

BACKGROUND: Research from 2006 documented substantial variation in medication coverage for residents across Canada. Since then, some provinces have implemented major medication plan reforms. We aimed to update the information on publicly funded medication insurance plans available across Canada and to compare out-of-pocket costs across the country. METHODS: We compared provincial medication insurance plans using data from public websites and other public source documents. Using 2 hypothetical clinical examples, we determined the amount and type of a patient's out-of-pocket costs for 5 different patient subtypes that varied based on medication burden, age and income. RESULTS: Each province offers a plan to all residents. Cost-sharing is employed across all provinces. Some residents must pay a premium to receive insurance or must pay 100% of their medication costs until they reach a deductible amount, above which government funding covers a portion of medication costs. With the scenario of low medication burden (medication cost about $500), out-of-pocket costs ranged from $250 to $2100 for higher-income residents and from $0 to $700 for lower-income residents. With the scenario of high medication burden (medication cost about $1800), the corresponding ranges were $250-$2500 and $0-$1100. The variation was due to province of residence, age and income. INTERPRETATION: Variations in out-of-pocket payments continue to exist across the provinces, with some groups facing high expenses. Further work is required to understand the impact of different cost-sharing mechanisms, develop policies to limit out-of-pocket expenses and improve provincial drug plans.

Is Canadian Healthcare Affordable? A Comparative Analysis of the Canadian Healthcare System from 2004 to 2014.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-related non-adherence (CRNA), serious problems paying medical bills and average annual out-of-pocket cost over time in five countries. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy survey from 2004 to 2014. Responses were compared between Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the US. RESULTS: Compared to the UK, respondents in Canada, Australia and New Zealand were two to three times and respondents in the US were eight times more likely to experience CRNA; these odds remained stable over time. From 2004 to 2014, Canadian respondents paid US $852-1,767 out-of-pocket for care. The US reported the largest risks of serious problems paying for care (13-18.5%), highest out-of-pocket costs (US $2,060-3,319) and greatest rise in expenditures. INTERPRETATION: Over the 10-year period, financial barriers to care were identified in Canada and internationally. Such persistent challenges are of great concern to countries striving for equitable access to healthcare.

Bioethics, health technology reassessment, and management.

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is an emerging area of health services and policy research that supports optimal management of technologies throughout their lifecycle. As a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, economic, social, and ethical impacts of existing technologies, HTR is a means of achieving optimal use, managed exit, and better value for money from technologies used in healthcare. This has been documented as raising ethical concerns among clinicians who are providing direct patient care, particularly when managed exit may be the goal. This article discusses the ethical considerations relevant to clinicians and HTR, using a principles' approach to bioethical decision-making.

Characteristics of frequent users of the emergency department in the general adult population: A systematic review of international healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to synthesize and compare population characteristics associated with frequent emergency department (ED) use within and across healthcare systems. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published between 1950 and 2015 was conducted. Healthcare systems of included studies were categorized using the Rothgang-Wendt typology. Demographic, clinical and health service utilization characteristics of frequent ED users in the general adult population were identified within each healthcare system. Pooled estimates, stratified by healthcare system, were calculated to compare the association of each characteristic with frequent, compared to non-frequent, emergency room use. RESULTS: Twenty moderate to high quality comparative cohort studies were included. Among these, five healthcare systems were identified: National Health Insurance; Private Healthcare; National Health Service; Social Health Insurance and Etatist Social Health Insurance. Many similar characteristics were observed: in most healthcare systems, frequent ED users were more likely to be older, female, and have a mental health diagnosis. Previous hospitalizations and high primary care use (>3 visits/year) were associated with future frequent ED use in the NHIS and NHS systems. CONCLUSIONS: Observed similarities suggest that frequent ED use may not differ from one healthcare system to the next. With increasing need to develop solutions for high ED utilization world-wide, targeted efforts must be made to bolster dissemination and uptake of effective interventions across healthcare contexts.

Reducing frequent visits to the emergency department: a systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the effectiveness of interventions to reduce frequent emergency department (ED) use among a general adult high ED-use population. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature from 1950-January 2015. Studies were included if they: had a control group (controlled trials or comparative cohort studies), were set in an ED or acute care facility, and examined the impact of an intervention to reduce frequent ED use in a general adult population. Studies reporting non-original data or focused on a specific patient population were excluded. Study design, patient population, intervention, the frequency of ED visits, and costs of frequent ED use and/or interventions were extracted and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Among 17 included articles, three intervention categories were identified: case management (n = 12), individualized care plans (n = 3), and information sharing (n = 2). Ten studies examining case management reported reductions in mean (-0.66 to -37) or median (-0.1 to -20) number of ED visits after 12-months; one study reported an increase in mean ED visits (+2.79); and one reported no change. Of these, 6 studies also reported reduced hospital costs. Only 1 study evaluating individualized care plans examined ED utilization and found no change in median ED visits post-intervention. Costs following individualized care plans were also only evaluated in 1 study, which reported savings in hospital costs of $742/patient. Evidence was mixed regarding information sharing: 1 study reported no change in mean ED visits and did not examine costs; whereas the other reported a decrease in mean ED visits (-16.9) and ED cost savings of $15,513/patient. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of all three frequent-user interventions was modest. Case management had the most rigorous evidence base, yielded moderate cost savings, but with variable reductions in ED use. Future studies evaluating non-traditional interventions, tailoring to patient subgroups or socio-cultural contexts, are warranted.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adult and Youth Populations: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Between 30% and 60% of individuals with major depressive disorder will have treatment-resistant depression (TRD): depression that does not subside with pharmaceutical treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an emerging treatment for TRD. OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy and optimal protocol for rTMS among adults and youth with TRD. DATA SOURCES: Two systematic reviews were conducted: one to determine the efficacy of rTMS for adults with TRD and another to determine the effectiveness of rTMS for youth with TRD. For adults, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched from inception until January 10, 2014 with no language restrictions. Terms aimed at capturing the target diagnosis, such as depression and depressive disorder, were combined with terms describing the technology, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and rTMS. Results were limited to studies involving human participants and designed as a randomized controlled trial. For youth, the search was altered to include youth only (aged 13-25 years) and all study designs. When possible, meta-analysis of response and remission rates was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Seventy-three articles were included in this review: 70 on adult and 3 on youth populations. RESULTS: Meta-analysis comparing rTMS and sham in adults found statistically significant results favoring rTMS for response (RR: 2.35 [95% CI, 1.70-3.25]) and remission (RR: 2.24 [95% CI, 1.53-3.27]). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing high- and low-frequency, unilateral and bilateral, low- and high-intensity rTMS or rTMS and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While meta-analysis of results from the youth literature was not possible, the limited evidence base suggests that rTMS may be effective for treating TRD in youth. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available on the use of rTMS for adults with TRD indicates that rTMS is approximately twice as effective as a sham procedure, although the optimal rTMS protocol remains unclear. Evidence also indicates that rTMS is as effective as ECT and appears promising as a treatment for youth with TRD; however, the evidence base is underdeveloped.