Toward the Implementation of a Value Framework for Diagnostic Technologies: Operationalization, Piloting, and Validation in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES: In 2020, a group of 30 stakeholders from Latin America established 15 criteria for a diagnostic technologies value framework (D-VF) to help assess and inform decisions on diagnostic technologies. This article aims to present the operationalization, piloting, and initial validation of the framework for its implementation. METHODS: This work was carried out collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. Three sequential phases were undertaken: (1) operationalization of the D-VF through a literature search for conceptual definitions and assessment tools, (2) piloting of the D-VF through a rapid health technology assessment document applying the methodology of the framework, and (3) a face validation process conducted through a virtual workshop, where usefulness and implementation aspects of the framework were assessed. RESULTS: The operationalization of the framework was conducted, and a methodological user guide was published. The D-VF criteria were applied in a health technology assessment document on human papilloma virus testing in cervical cancer screening. Also, an open-access training program was developed. Stakeholders agreed on the usefulness of the D-VF for assessment and decision-making stages of diagnostic technologies. However, they highlighted the need to improve technical capacities and the potential for added complexity when applying a D-VF with many criteria. The absence of an established value framework for diagnostic technologies in Latin America and the potential for strengthening technical capacities made the project valuable to those involved. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic technologies value framework was shown to be fit for implementation in real-life decision-making settings after the operationalization, piloting, and initial validation phases. Further experiences are important to support its implementation.

A Systematic Review of Value Criteria for Next-Generation Sequencing/Comprehensive Genomic Profiling to Inform Value Framework Development.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively identify and map an exhaustive list of value criteria for the assessment of next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP), to be used as an aid in decision making. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify existing value frameworks (VFs) applicable to any type of healthcare technology. VFs and criteria were mapped to a previously published Latin American (LA) VF to harmonize definitions and identify additional criteria and or subcriteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted a comprehensive, evidence-based list of criteria and subcriteria to be considered in the design of a NGS/CGP VF. RESULTS: A total of 42 additional VFs were compared with the LA VF, 88% were developed in high-income countries, 30% targeted genomic testing, and 16% specifically targeted oncology. A total of 242 criteria and subcriteria were extracted; 227 (94%) were fully/partially included in the LA VF; and 15 (6%) were new. Clinical benefit and economic aspects were the most common criteria. VFs oriented to genomic testing showed significant overlap with other VFs. Considering all criteria and subcriteria, a total of 18 criteria and 36 individual subcriteria were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an evidence-based set of criteria and subcriteria for healthcare decision making useful for NGS/CGP as well as other health technologies. The resulting list can be beneficial to inform decision making and will serve as a foundation to co-create a multistakeholder NGS/CGP VF that is aligned with the needs and values of health systems and could help to improve patient access to high-value technologies.

Cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in Latin America and the Caribbean: an analysis in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru.

OBJECTIVE: Our study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru. METHODS: Using a previously published SVEIR model, we analyzed the impact of a vaccination campaign (2021) from a national healthcare perspective. The primary outcomes were quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost and total costs. Other outcomes included COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and life years. We applied a discount rate of 3% for health outcomes. We modeled a realistic vaccination campaign in each country (the realistic country-specific campaign). Additionally, we assessed a standard campaign (similar, "typical" for all countries), and an optimized campaign (similar in all countries with higher but plausible population coverage). One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Vaccination was health improving as well as cost-saving in almost all countries and scenarios. Our analysis shows that vaccination in this group of countries prevented 573,141 deaths (508,826 standard; 685,442 optimized) and gained 5.07 million QALYs (4.53 standard; 6.03 optimized). Despite the incremental costs of vaccination campaigns, they had a total net cost saving to the health system of US$16.29 billion (US$16.47 standard; US$18.58 optimized). The realistic (base case) vaccination campaign in Chile was the only scenario, which was not cost saving, but it was still highly cost-effective with an ICER of US$22 per QALY gained. Main findings were robust in the sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in seven Latin American and Caribbean countries -that comprise nearly 80% of the region- was beneficial for population health and was also cost-saving or highly cost-effective.

Preference heterogeneity in health valuation: a latent class analysis of the Peru EQ-5D-5L values.

BACKGROUND: Preference heterogeneity in health valuation has become a topic of greater discussion among health technology assessment agencies. To better understand heterogeneity within a national population, valuation studies may identify latent groups that place different absolute and relative importance (i.e., scale and taste parameters) on the attributes of health profiles. OBJECTIVE: Using discrete choice responses from a Peruvian valuation study, we estimated EQ-5D-5L values on a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) scale accounting for latent heterogeneity in scale and taste, as well as controlling heteroskedasticity at task level variation. METHOD: We conducted a series of latent class analyses, each including the 20 main effects of the EQ-5D-5L and a power function that relaxes the constant proportionality assumption (i.e., discounting) between value and lifespan. Taste class membership was conditional on respondent-specific characteristics and their experience with the composite time trade-off (cTTO) tasks. Scale class membership was conditional on behavioral characteristics such as survey duration and self-stated difficulty level in understanding tasks. Each analysis allowed the scale factor to vary by task type and completion time (i.e., heteroskedasticity). RESULTS: The results indicated three taste classes: a quality-of-life oriented class (33.35%) that placed the highest value on levels of severity, a length-of-life oriented class (26.72%) that placed the highest value on lifespan, and a middle class (39.71%) with health attribute effects lower than the quality class and lifespan effect lower than the length-of-life oriented class. The EQ-5D-5L values ranged from - 2.11 to 0.86 (quality-of-life oriented class), from - 0.38 to 1.02 (middle class), and from 0.36 to 1.01 (length-of-life oriented class). The likelihood of being a member of the quality-of-life class was highly dependent on whether the respondent completed the cTTO tasks (p-value < 0.001), which indicated that the cTTO tasks might cause the Peru respondents to inflate the burden of health problems on a QALY scale compared to those who did not complete the cTTO tasks. The results also showed two scale classes as well as heteroskedasticity within each scale class. CONCLUSION: Accounting for taste and scale classes simultaneously improveds understanding of preference heterogeneity in health valuation. Future studies may confirm the differences in taste between classes in terms of the effect of quality of life and lifespan attributes. Furthermore, confirmatory evidence is needed on how behavioral variables captured within a study protocol may enhance analyses of preference heterogeneity.

The health, economic and social burden of smoking in Argentina, and the impact of increasing tobacco taxes in a context of illicit trade.

Tobacco tax increases, the most cost-effective measure in reducing consumption, remain underutilized in low and middle-income countries. This study estimates the health and economic burden of smoking in Argentina and forecasts the benefits of tobacco tax hikes, accounting for the potential effects of illicit trade. Using a probabilistic Markov microsimulation model, this study quantifies smoking-related deaths, health events, and societal costs. The model also estimates the health and economic benefits of different increases in the price of cigarettes through taxes. Annually, smoking causes 45,000 deaths and 221,000 health events in Argentina, costing USD 2782 million in direct medical expenses, USD 1470 million in labor productivity loss costs, and USD 1069 million in informal care costs-totaling 1.2% of the national gross domestic product. Even in a scenario that considers illicit trade of tobacco products, a 50% cigarette price increase through taxes could yield USD 8292 million in total economic benefits accumulated over a decade. Consequently, raising tobacco taxes could significantly reduce the health and economic burdens of smoking in Argentina while increasing fiscal revenue.

Health, economic and social burden of tobacco in Latin America and the expected gains of fully implementing taxes, plain packaging, advertising bans and smoke-free environments control measures: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the tobacco-attributable burden on disease, medical costs, productivity losses and informal caregiving; and to estimate the health and economic gains that can be achieved if the main tobacco control measures (raising taxes on tobacco, plain packaging, advertising bans and smoke-free environments) are fully implemented in eight countries that encompass 80% of the Latin American population. DESIGN: Markov probabilistic microsimulation economic model of the natural history, costs and quality of life associated with the main tobacco-related diseases. Model inputs and data on labour productivity, informal caregivers' burden and interventions' effectiveness were obtained through literature review, surveys, civil registrations, vital statistics and hospital databases. Epidemiological and economic data from January to October 2020 were used to populate the model. FINDINGS: In these eight countries, smoking is responsible each year for 351 000 deaths, 2.25 million disease events, 12.2 million healthy years of life lost, US$22.8 billion in direct medical costs, US$16.2 billion in lost productivity and US$10.8 billion in caregiver costs. These economic losses represent 1.4% of countries' aggregated gross domestic products. The full implementation and enforcement of the four strategies: taxes, plain packaging, advertising bans and smoke-free environments would avert 271 000, 78 000, 71 000 and 39 000 deaths, respectively, in the next 10 years, and result in US$63.8, US$12.3, US$11.4 and US$5.7 billions in economic gains, respectively, on top of the benefits being achieved today by the current level of implementation of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking represents a substantial burden in Latin America. The full implementation of tobacco control measures could successfully avert deaths and disability, reduce healthcare spending and caregiver and productivity losses, likely resulting in large net economic benefits.

Making visible the cost of informal caregivers' time in Latin America: a case study for major cardiovascular, cancer and respiratory diseases in eight countries.

BACKGROUND: Informal care is a key element of health care and well-being for society, yet it is scarcely visible and rarely studied in health economic evaluations. This study aims to estimate the time use and cost associated with informal care for cardiovascular diseases, pneumonia and ten different cancers in eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru). METHODS: We carried out an exhaustive literature review on informal caregivers' time use, focusing on the selected diseases. We developed a survey for professional caregivers and conducted expert interviews to validate this data in the local context. We used an indirect estimate through the interpolation of the available data, for those cases in which we do not found reliable information. We used the proxy good method to estimate the monetary value of the use of time of informal care. National household surveys databases were processed to obtain the average wage per hour of a proxy of informal caregiver. Estimates were expressed in 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: The study estimated approximately 1,900 million hours of informal care annually and $ 4,300 million per year in average informal care time cost for these fifteen diseases and eight countries analyzed. Cardiovascular diseases accounted for an informal care burden that ranged from 374 to 555 h per year, while cancers varied from 512 to 1,825 h per year. The informal care time cost share on GDP varied from 0.26% (Mexico) to 1.38% (Brazil), with an average of 0.82% in the studied American countries. Informal care time cost represents between 16 and 44% of the total economic cost (direct medical and informal care cost) associated with health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that there is a significant informal care economic burden -frequently overlooked- in different chronic and acute diseases in Latin American countries; and highlights the relevance of including the economic value of informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare.

Real-world evidence: experiences and challenges for decision making in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process aims to optimize health system funding of technologies. In recent years there has been an increase in what is known as Real-World Evidence (RWE) as a complement to clinical trials. The objective of Health Technology Assessment International's Latin American Policy Forum 2022 was to explore the utility of incorporating RWE into HTA and decision-making processes in the region. METHODS: This article is based on a background document, survey, and the deliberative work of the country representatives who participated in the Forum. RESULTS: There is a growing interest in the use of Real-World Data / Real-World Evidence in HTA processes in Latin America, although currently there are no specific local guidelines for RWE use by HTA agencies. At present, its use is limited to certain areas such as adding context to HTA reports, the evaluation of adverse events, or cost estimation.Potential future uses of RWE were identified, including the creation of risk-sharing agreements, the assessment of technology performance in routine practice, providing information on outcomes that are not so easily evaluated in clinical trials (e.g., the identification of specific subpopulations or quality of life), and the estimation of input parameters for economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The participants agreed that there are several areas presenting significant potential to expand the application of RWD/RWE and that the development of normative frameworks for its use could be helpful.

[Burden of disease and economic burden attributable to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in El SalvadorCarga de morbidade e econômica atribuível ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas em El Salvador]. / Carga de enfermedad y económica atribuible al consumo de bebidas azucaradas en El Salvador.

Objective: To estimate the burden of disease and economic burden attributable to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in El Salvador. Methods: A comparative risk model was used to estimate the effects on deaths, health events, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and direct medical costs attributable to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Results: A total of 520 deaths (8 per 100 000 individuals), 214 082 health events (3 220 per 100 000 individuals) and 16 643 DALYs could be attributable to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in El Salvador, representing US$69.35 million in direct medical costs for the year 2020. In particular, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) events attributable to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages could represent more than 20% of total T2DM cases in the country. Conclusion: A high number of deaths, events, and costs could be attributed to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in El Salvador.

Objetivo: Estimar a carga de morbidade e econômica atribuível ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas em El Salvador. Métodos: Foi utilizado um modelo de risco comparativo para estimar os efeitos sobre óbitos, eventos de saúde, anos perdidos devido a morte prematura ou vividos com incapacidade (AVAI) e custos médicos diretos atribuíveis ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas. Resultados: Um total de 520 mortes (8 por 100 00 indivíduos), 214 082 eventos de saúde (3 220 por 100 000 indivíduos) e 16 643 AVAI podem ser atribuídos ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas em El Salvador, o que representa US$ 69,35 milhões em custos médicos diretos para o ano de 2020. Os eventos de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) atribuíveis ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas, em especial, podem representar mais de 20% do total de casos de DM2 no país. Conclusões: Um número elevado de mortes, eventos de saúde e custos pode ser atribuído ao consumo de bebidas açucaradas em El Salvador.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

The Development of a New International Generic Measure (EQ-HWB): Face Validity and Psychometric Stages in Argentina.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to present the face validity and psychometric stages performed in Spanish in Argentina, the only Spanish-speaking country of an international collaboration that undertook the construction of a new measure that can be used in economic evaluation across health, social care, and public health, the EQ EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing). We also explored the relationship among 3-level version EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L), 5-level version EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), and EQ-HWB. METHODS: Face validity was based on semistructured face to face interviews of a purposive sample to explore translatability of language and concepts of 97 candidate items, translated into Argentina Spanish. The psychometric evaluation using an online panel assessed the psychometric properties of 64 items that were carried forward (floor and ceiling effects, item correlations, known-group differences in relevant prespecified subgroups by the international and local teams, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory). EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-HWB correlations were explored. RESULTS: In the face validity stage, 24 interviews with carers, general public, patients, and users of social services were included. Most items showed adequate face validity. In the psychometric assessment, 497 participants were recruited (64% reporting a long-term health condition). Most of the items showed adequate psychometrics in an Argentinian context. EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L had strong correlations, and EQ-HWB was moderately correlated to EQ visual analog scale. The Argentina team recommended 23 of the final 25 items. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of Spanish items contributed to the overall development of EQ-HWB and helped inform the design of an internationally relevant 25-item and a short 9-item measure intended to be used in economic evaluations.

Generation, Selection, and Face Validation of Items for a New Generic Measure of Quality of Life: The EQ-HWB.

OBJECTIVES: This article aims to describe the generation and selection of items (stage 2) and face validation (stage 3) of a large international (multilingual) project to develop a new generic measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), for use in economic evaluation across health, social care, and public health to estimate quality-adjusted life-years. METHODS: Items from commonly used generic, carer, social care, and mental health quality of life measures were mapped onto domains or subdomains identified from a literature review. Potential terms and items were reviewed and refined to ensure coverage of the construct of the domains/subdomain (stage 2). Input on the potential item pool, response options, and recall period was sought from 3 key stakeholder groups. The pool of candidate items was tested in qualitative interviews with potential future users in an international face validation study (stage 3). RESULTS: Stage 2 resulted in the generation of 687 items. Predetermined selection criteria were applied by the research team resulting in 598 items being dropped, leaving 89 items that were reviewed by key stakeholder groups. Face validation (stage 3) tested 97 draft items and 4 response scales. A total of 47 items were retained and 14 were modified, whereas 3 were added to the candidate pool of items. This resulted in a 64-item set. CONCLUSIONS: This international multiculture, multilingual study with a common methodology identified many items that performed well across all countries. These were taken to the psychometric testing along with modified and new items for the EQ-HWB.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing Measure: Psychometric Survey Results for the EQ-HWB.

OBJECTIVES: The development of measures such as the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing) requires selection of items. This study explored the psychometric performance of candidate items, testing their validity in patients, social carer users, and carers. METHODS: Article and online surveys that included candidate items (N = 64) were conducted in Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States. Psychometric assessment on missing data, response distributions, and known group differences was undertaken. Dimensionality was explored using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Poorly fitting items were identified using information functions, and the function of each response category was assessed using category characteristic curves from item response theory (IRT) models. Differential item functioning was tested across key subgroups. RESULTS: There were 4879 respondents (Argentina = 508, Australia = 514, China = 497, Germany = 502, United Kingdom = 1955, United States = 903). Where missing data were allowed, it was low (UK article survey 2.3%; US survey 0.6%). Most items had responses distributed across all levels. Most items could discriminate between groups with known health conditions with moderate to large effect sizes. Items were less able to discriminate across carers. Factor analysis found positive and negative measurement factors alongside the constructs of interest. For most of the countries apart from China, the confirmatory factor analysis model had good fit with some minor modifications. IRT indicated that most items had well-functioning response categories but there was some evidence of differential item functioning in many items. CONCLUSIONS: Items performed well in classical psychometric testing and IRT. This large 6-country collaboration provided evidence to inform item selection for the EQ-HWB measure.

Challenges of Health Technology Assessment in Pluralistic Healthcare Systems: An ISPOR Council Report.

Health technology assessment (HTA) has been growing in use over the past 40 years, especially in its impact on decisions regarding the reimbursement, adoption, and use of new drugs, devices, and procedures. In countries or jurisdictions with "pluralistic" healthcare systems, there are multiple payers or sectors, each of which could potentially benefit from HTA. Nevertheless, a single HTA, conducted centrally, may not meet the needs of these different actors, who may have different budgets, current standards of care, populations to serve, or decision-making processes. This article reports on the research conducted by an ISPOR Health Technology Assessment Council Working Group established to examine the specific challenges of conducting and using HTA in countries with pluralistic healthcare systems. The Group used its own knowledge and expertise, supplemented by a narrative literature review and survey of US payers, to identify existing challenges and any initiatives taken to address them. We recommend that countries with pluralistic healthcare systems establish a national focus for HTA, develop a uniform set of HTA methods guidelines, ensure that HTAs are produced in a timely fashion, facilitate the use of HTA in the local setting, and develop a framework to encourage transparency in HTA. These efforts can be enhanced by the development of good practice guidance from ISPOR or similar groups and increased training to facilitate local use of HTA.

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results.

OBJECTIVES: Existing measures for estimating quality-adjusted life-years are mostly limited to health-related quality of life. This article presents an overview of the development the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), which is a measure that encompasses health and wellbeing. METHODS: Stages: (1) Establishing domains through reviews of the qualitative literature informed by a conceptual framework. (2) Generation and selection of items to cover the domains. (3) Face validation of these items through qualitative interviews with 168 patients, social care users, general population, and carers across 6 countries (Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, United States). (4) Extensive psychometric testing of candidate items (using classical, factor analysis, and item response theory methods) on > 4000 respondents in the 6 countries. Stakeholders were consulted throughout. RESULTS: A total of 32 subdomains grouped into 7 high-level domains were identified from the qualitative literature and 97 items generated to cover them. Face validation eliminated 36 items, modified 14, and added 3. Psychometric testing of 64 items found little difference in missing data or problems with response distribution, the conceptual model was confirmed except in China, and most items performed well in the item response theory in all countries. Evidence was presented to stakeholders in 2 rounds of consultation to inform the final selection of items for the EQ-HWB (25-item) and the short version of EQ-HWB (9-items). CONCLUSIONS: EQ-HWB measures have been developed internationally for evaluating interventions in health, public health, and social care including the impact on patients, social care users, and carers.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Evidence-Informed Update of Argentina's Health Benefit Package: Application of a Rapid Review Methodology.

OBJECTIVES: Argentina has a fragmented healthcare system with social security covering almost two thirds of the population. Its benefit package-called compulsory medical program (PMO; by its Spanish acronym Programa Médico Obligatorio)-has not been formally and widely updated since 2005. However, laws, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and a high-cost technology reimbursement fund complement it. Our objective was to comprehensively review such a PMO and propose an update considering the corresponding complementary sources. METHODS: We followed four steps: (i) identification of health technologies from the current PMO and complementary sources, (ii) prioritization, (iii) assessment through rapid health technology assessment (HTA), and (iv) appraisal and recommendations. We evaluated three value domains: quality of evidence, net benefit, and economics, which were summarized in a five-category recommendation traffic-light scale ranging from a strong recommendation in favor of inclusion to a strong recommendation for exclusion. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty technologies were identified; 164 of those, considered as high priority, were assessed through rapid HTAs. Those technologies mentioned in laws and CPGs were mostly outpatient essential medicines, whereas those from the reimbursement system were mostly high-cost drugs; of these 101 technologies, 50 percent were recommended to be kept in the PMO. The other 63 (identified by the Superintendence of Health Services, technology producers, and patients) were mostly medical procedures and high-cost drugs; only 25 percent of those resulted in a favorable recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: A methodology based on four clearly identified steps was used to carry out a comprehensive review of an outdated and fragmented benefit package. The use of rapid HTAs and a traffic-light recommendation framework facilitated the deliberative evidence-based update.