Deliberative process of health technology reassessment by health technology assessment agency in Korea.

In 2019, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) in Korea established a health technology reassessment (HTR) system to manage the life cycle of health technologies and develop operational measures promoting the efficient use of healthcare resources. The purpose of this study is to introduce the detailed implementation process and practical functional methods of the HTR implemented by NECA.The HTR is a structured multidisciplinary method for analyzing health technologies currently used in the healthcare system based on the latest information on parameters, such as clinical safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of optimizing the use of healthcare resources as well as social and ethical issues. All decision-making stages of the HTR are carefully reviewed and transparently managed. The HTR committee makes significant decisions, and the subcommittee decides the details related to the assessment process.Since the pilot began in 2018, 262 cases have been reassessed, of which, 126 cases (48.1 percent) were health services not covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI). Over the past 5 years, approximately 130 recommendations for the in-use technologies were determined by the HTR committee. In the near future, it will be necessary to officially develop and establish a Korean HTR system and a legal foundation to optimize the NHI system.

Disinvestment in healthcare: a scoping review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Disinvestment from low value health technologies is growing globally. Diverse evidence gathering and assessment methods were used to implement disinvestment initiatives, however, less than half of the empirical studies report reduced use of the low-value services. This scoping review aimed to synthesize the information from available reviews on the concepts and purposes of disinvestment in healthcare, the approaches and methods used, the role of stakeholders and facilitators and barriers in its implementation. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA statement for scoping review. Published reviews on disinvestment were identified from scientific databases including health technology assessment (HTA) Web sites using the terms "disinvestment," "health technology reassessment," and "healthcare." The data obtained was synthesized narratively to identify similarities and differences across the approaches based on the prespecified categories. RESULTS: Seventeen reviews were included with thirty-four initiatives identified across sixteen countries at various levels of implementation and responsible agencies for the activities. Two most used methods to facilitate disinvestment decisions are Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) and HTA. Stakeholder involvement is the most important aspect to be addressed, as it acts as both facilitator and barrier in disinvestment initiatives implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Disinvestment programs have been implemented at multilevel, involving multistakeholders and using multiple methods such as PBMA and HTA. However, there is a lack of clarity on the additional dimensions of technical analysis related to these tools. Further research could focus on technology optimization in healthcare as part of overall health technology management.

Characteristics of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks for health technology reassessment: expert perspectives through a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a process that systematically assesses technologies that are currently used in the health care system. The process results in four outputs: increase use or decrease use, no change, or de-adoption of a technology. Implementation of these outputs remains a challenge. The Knowledge Translation (KT) field enables to transfer/translate knowledge into practice. KT could help with implementation of HTR outputs. This study sought to identify which characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks could be useful, specifically for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used to ascertain the perspectives of international KT and HTR experts on the characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and sub-themes were deduced from the data through framework analysis using five distinctive steps: familiarization, identifying an analytic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. Themes and sub-themes were also mapped to existing KT theories, models, and frameworks. RESULTS: Thirteen experts from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Sweden participated in the study. Three themes emerged that illustrated the ideal traits: principles that were foundational for HTR, levers of change, and steps for knowledge to action. Principles included evidence-based, high usability, patient-centered, and ability to apply to the micro, meso, macro levels. Levers of change were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative influences for changing behaviour for HTR. Steps for knowledge to action included: build the case for HTR, adapt research knowledge, assess context, select interventions, and assess impact. Of the KT theories, models, and frameworks that were mapped, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research had most of the characteristics, except ability to apply to micro, meso, macro levels. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics that need to be considered within a KT theory, model, and framework for implementing HTR outputs have been identified. Consideration of these characteristics may guide users to select relevant KT theories, models, and frameworks to apply to HTR projects.

What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment.

BACKGROUND: Recent attempts of active disinvestment (i.e. withdrawal of reimbursement by means of a policy decision) of reimbursed healthcare interventions in the Netherlands have differed in their outcome: some attempts were successful, with interventions actually being disinvested. Other attempts were terminated at some point, implying unsuccessful disinvestment. This study aimed to obtain insight into recent active disinvestment processes, and to explore what aspects affect their outcome. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from January to December 2018 with stakeholders (e.g. patients, policymakers, physicians) who were involved in the policy process of five cases for which the full or partial withdrawal of reimbursement was considered in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2017: benzodiazepines, medication for Fabry disease, quit smoking programme, psychoanalytic therapy and maternity care assistance. These cases covered both interventions that were eventually disinvested and interventions for which reimbursement was maintained after consideration. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, double coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 37 interviews showed that support for disinvestment from stakeholders, especially from healthcare providers and policymakers, strongly affected the outcome of the disinvestment process. Furthermore, the institutional role of stakeholders as legitimized by the Dutch health insurance system, their financial interests in maintaining or discontinuing reimbursement, and the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients affected the outcome of the disinvestment process as well. A poor organization of patient groups may make it difficult for patients to exert pressure, which may contribute to successful disinvestment. No evidence was found of a consistent role of the formal Dutch package criteria (i.e. effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, necessity and feasibility) in active disinvestment processes. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual factors as well as the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients are important determinants of the outcome of active disinvestment processes. These results provide insight into active disinvestment processes and their determinants, and provide guidance to policymakers for a potentially more successful approach for future active disinvestment processes.

A collaborative pilot on current awareness alerts for disinvestment and horizon scanning.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, members of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Interest Group for Disinvestment and Early Awareness (DEA-IG) and the HTAi Interest Group for Information Retrieval (IR-IG) agreed to produce quarterly current awareness alerts for members of the DEA-IG. The purpose was to pilot a predefined strategy for sharing new publications on methods and topical issues in this area. METHODS: Literature search strategies for PubMed and Google were developed. Retrieved citations were posted on the DEA-IG Web site. Members of the DEA-IG received an email notification when new alerts were available. An informal survey of the DEA-IG members was used to provide feedback after the pilot. RESULTS: Six alerts were issued during the pilot (June 2019-September 2020) with a total of 170 citations. The bulk of the information were 124 PubMed indexed citations, and of these, 96 were retrieved by the PubMed search strategies. Google searches were not found to be useful, but ongoing horizon scanning work at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) provided additional information. Based on retrospective sorting, we considered thirty-five PubMed citations to be highly relevant for health technology assessment (HTA). The response rate to the survey was limited (seventeen respondents), but most respondents found the alerts useful for their work. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot project can be used to revise search strategies and information sources, improve the relevance of the alerts, and plan for expanded dissemination strategies.

Optimizing red blood cell transfusion practices in the intensive care unit: a multi-phased health technology reassessment.

BACKGROUND: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a process to manage existing health technologies to ensure ongoing optimal use. A model to guide HTR was developed; however, there is limited practical experience. This paper addresses this knowledge gap through the completion of a multi-phase HTR of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: The HTR consisted of three phases and here we report on the final phase: the development, implementation, and evaluation of behavior change interventions aimed at addressing inappropriate RBC transfusions in an ICU. METHODS: The interventions, comprised of group education and audit and feedback, were co-designed and implemented with clinical leaders. The intervention was evaluated through a controlled before-and-after pilot feasibility study. The primary outcome was the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions (i.e., with a pre-transfusion hemoglobin of 70 g/L or more). RESULTS: There was marked variability in the monthly proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions. Relative to the pre-intervention phase, there was no significant difference in the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions post-intervention. Lessons from this work include the importance of early and meaningful engagement of clinical leaders; tailoring the intervention modalities; and, efficient access to data through an electronic clinical information system. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to design, implement, and evaluate a tailored, multi-modal behavior change intervention in this small-scale pilot study. However, early evaluation of the intervention revealed no change in technology use leading to reflection on the important question of how the HTR model needs to be improved.

Sustainability of healthcare systems in Asia: exploring the roles of horizon scanning and reassessment in the health technology assessment landscape.

OBJECTIVES: The 2019 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) discussed the role of horizon scanning (HS) and health technology reassessment (HTR) in supporting sustainable healthcare in Asia. METHODS: Discussions and presentations at the 2019 HAPF, informed by a literature review, results of a premeeting survey, and case studies of HTA agencies from the region form the basis of this paper. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen HTA agencies surveyed have established or are developing HS systems (HSSs), and six reported some experience with HTR. Although there were many differences in the respective HSSs, all were proactive and identified technologies within a 1-3-year time horizon. Commonalities included the criteria used to prioritize the technologies including burden and rarity of the disease, and cost to the health system and patients. Experience in HTR was not as extensive with most HTR activity being conducted on an ad hoc basis. Challenges for both HS and HTR include a lack of HTA capacity and good quality data, as well as a need for transparency and collaboration with industry. CONCLUSIONS: With developing universal health care and HTA capacity in many countries in Asia, HS and HTR are in their infancy. Whilst several countries in the region are experienced in all facets of HTA, other countries are developing their HTA skill base. As such, there was a clear appetite for setting up a collaborative network in the Asia region to facilitate information sharing around HTA activities, and more specifically, HS and HTR methodologies, experiences, and assessments.

Knowledge translation and health technology reassessment: identifying synergy.

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is an emerging field that shifts the focus from traditional methods of technology adoption to managing technology throughout its lifecycle. HTR is a mechanism to improve patient care and system efficiency through a reallocation of resources away from low-value care towards interventions and technologies that are high value. To achieve this, the outputs of HTR and its recommendations must be translated into practice. The evolving field of knowledge translation (KT) can provide guidance to improve the uptake of evidence-informed policies and recommendations resulting from the process of HTR. This paper argues how the theories, models and frameworks from KT could advance the HTR process. DISCUSSION: First, common KT theories, models and frameworks are presented. Second, facilitators and barriers to KT within the context of HTR are summarized from the literature. Facilitators and barriers to KT include ensuring a solid research evidence-base for the technology under reassessment, assessing the climate and context, understanding the social an political context, initiating linkage and exchange, having a structured HTR Process, adequate resources, and understanding the roles of researchers, knowledge users, and stakeholders can enhance knowledge translation of HTR outputs. Third, three case examples at the individual (micro), organizational (meso), and policy (macro) levels are used to illustrate to describe how a KT theory, model or framework could be applied to a HTR project. These case studies show how selecting and applying KT theories, models and frameworks can facilitate the implementation of HTR recommendations. CONCLUSION: HTR and KT are synergistic processes that can be used to optimize technology use throughout its lifecycle. We argue that the application of KT theories, models and frameworks, and the assessment of barriers and facilitators to KT can facilitate translation of HTR recommendations into practice.

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.

A systematic review on current status of health technology reassessment: insights for South Korea.

BACKGROUND: To systematically investigate the current status and methodology of health technology reassessment (HTR) in various countries to draw insights for the healthcare system in South Korea. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on the articles published between January 2000 and February 2015 on Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PubMed. The titles and abstracts of retrieved records were screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data related to HTR were extracted using a pre-standardised form. The review was conducted using narrative synthesis to understand and summarise the HTR process and policies. RESULTS: Forty five studies, conducted in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and the United States of America, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Informed by the literature review, and complemented by informant interviews, we focused on HTR activities in four jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Spain. There were similarities in the HTR processes, namely the use of existing health technology assessment agencies, reassessment candidate technology identification and priority setting, stakeholder involvement, support for reimbursement coverage, and implementation strategies. Considering the findings of the systematic review in the context of the domestic healthcare environment in Korea, an appropriate HTR model was developed. This model included four stages, those of identification, prioritisation, reassessment and decision. CONCLUSIONS: Disinvestment and reinvestment through the HTR was used to increase the efficiency and quality of care to help patients receive optimal treatment. Based on the lessons learnt from other countries' experiences, Korea should make efforts to establish an HTR process that optimises the National Healthcare Insurance system through revision of the existing Medical Service Act.

DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS.

OBJECTIVES: Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation. METHODS: Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts. RESULTS: Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top-down and bottom-up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians. CONCLUSIONS: All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.

Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment and Priority Setting in South Korea's Universal Health Coverage Journey.

This study charts the chronological developments of the three institutions that were established in South Korea for priority setting in health. In 2007, the Evidence-based Medicine Team and the Center for New Health Technology Assessment (CnHTA) were established and nested in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In December 2008, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) was launched, to which the CnHTA was transferred in 2010. Since then, non-drug technologies have been reviewed by NECA and drugs have been reviewed by HIRA. Political debates about how to embrace expensive but important health technologies that were not on the benefits list led to the creation of the Participatory Priority Setting Committee (PPSC) in 2012. The PPSC, led by the general public, has played a key role in advancing the path toward universal health coverage by revitalizing the list of essential, yet previously overlooked, medical technologies. PPSC offers these technologies a second chance at coverage. HIRA and NECA served to strengthen evidence-based and efficiency-based decision-making in the health system via CnHTA, and PPSC served to strengthen social value-based decision making via priority setting in Korea. The reassessment by PPSC may be relevant in countries where the economy is growing and citizens want to rapidly expand the benefits list.

If you were a policymaker, which treatment would you disinvest? A participatory value evaluation on public preferences for active disinvestment of health care interventions in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment. METHODS: A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices. RESULTS: Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings. CONCLUSION: The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment.

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.

To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens. METHOD: In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics. RESULTS: The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants' age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem. CONCLUSION: Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 6.

In this latest update we highlight recent publications from the US FDA and a Canadian Health Technology Assessment collaboration which provide insights into the future role of real-world evidence in market access in terms of health technology management.

Assessing the benefit of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale over time.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, cancer drugs are being approved based on surrogate measurements of efficacy. Clinically meaningful data, such as overall survival (OS) and quality of life, are often only presented in subsequent publications. We examined if the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, as measured by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), improves post-European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval as more data emerges. METHODS: Cancer drug indications approved by the EMA from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed and trials cited for efficacy were identified. Primary and subsequent publications (up to December 2019) of scorable trials were included. Changes in benefit over time were measured using ESMO-MCBS thresholds for non-curative (≥4 for substantial, =3 for intermediate and ≤2 for low benefit) and curative intent (A or B for major benefit) scoring. RESULTS: Fifty-five non-curative and two curative intent trials were included. At approval, 29.1% of non-curative trials were substantial, 45.5% intermediate and 25.5% low benefit. For curative intent trials, one displayed major benefit and one displayed no major benefit. We identified 82 subsequent publications for reassessment. A change in ESMO-MCBS classification was seen in 34.5% of non-curative trials (11 raised and 8 lowered). At 3-year reassessment, 36.4% of non-curative trials were substantial, 34.5% intermediate and 29.1% low benefit. Both curative trials showed no major benefit at reassessment. CONCLUSION: As over a third of trials changed classification, in either direction, reassessing the ESMO-MCBS score of approved cancer drugs may help to inform patients and ensure ongoing relevance of regulatory and reimbursement decisions.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views. METHODS: A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n = 43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants. RESULTS: Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent. CONCLUSION: Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.

Achieving optimal technology use: A proposed model for health technology reassessment.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers, managers and policy-makers in many jurisdictions are focused on a common goal: optimizing value and quality of care provided to their citizens within a resource envelope. Health technology reassessment is a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical and economic effects of a technology currently used in the healthcare system to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison with its alternatives. There are, however, few practical experiences with health technology reassessment and, as such, a nascent theoretical and methodological base. Health technology reassessment is a key strategy to achieve optimal healthcare resource utilization, and establishing a model for health technology reassessment is a required methodological step. METHODS AND RESULTS: The purpose of this article is to answer three formative questions: (1) What is health technology reassessment? (2) When should a health technology reassessment be implemented? (3) What is the role of health technology reassessment in evidence-informed health policy? Finally, we propose a conceptual framework for health technology reassessment, which others can modify, adapt, or adopt in their own context. The model consists of three broad phases and six iterative stages: (1) identification, (2) prioritization, (3) evidence synthesis, (4) determine policy/practice recommendation, (5) policy/practice implementation and (6) monitoring and evaluation. Two foundational components (meaningful stakeholder engagement and ongoing knowledge exchange and utilization) are represented across all stages. CONCLUSION: This description of health technology reassessment and the proposed model can be used by healthcare policy-makers and researchers to advance the field of technology management, with the goal of achieving optimal use throughout a technology's lifecycle.