How Do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations. METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

It Is Time to Reconsider the 3% Discount Rate.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) guidance often recommends a 3% real annual discount rate, the appropriateness of which has received limited attention. This article seeks to identify an appropriate rate for high-income countries because it can influence projected cost-effectiveness and hence resource allocation recommendations. METHODS: The author conducted 2 Pubmed.gov searches. The first sought articles on the theory for selecting a rate. The second sought HTA guidance documents. RESULTS: The first search yielded 21 articles describing 2 approaches. The "Ramsey Equation" sums contributions by 4 factors: pure time preference, catastrophic risk, wealth effect, and macroeconomic risk. The first 3 factors increase the discount rate because they indicate future impacts are less important, whereas the last, suggesting greater future need, decreases the discount rate. A fifth factor-project-specific risk-increases the discount rate but does not appear in the Ramsey Equation. Market interest rates represent a second approach for identifying a discount rate because they represent competing investment returns and hence opportunity costs. The second search identified HTA guidelines for 32 high-income countries. Twenty-two provide no explicit rationale for their recommended rates, 8 appeal to market interest rates, 3 to consistency, and 3 to Ramsey Equation factors. CONCLUSIONS: Declining consumption growth and real interest rates imply HTA guidance should reduce recommended discount rates to 1.5 to 2+%. This change will improve projected cost-effectiveness for therapies with long-term benefits and increase the impact of accounting for long-term drug price dynamics, including reduced prices attending loss of market exclusivity.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. METHODS: We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS: We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

The Optimal Sample Size for Usability Testing, From the Manufacturer's Perspective: A Value-of-Information Approach.

OBJECTIVES: For medical devices, a usability assessment is mandatory for market access; the objective is to detect potentially harmful use errors that stem from the device's design. The manufacturer assesses the final version of the device and determines the risk-benefit ratio for remaining errors. Nevertheless, the decision rule currently used to determine the sample size for this testing has statistical limitations and the lack of a clear decision-making perspective. METHODS: As an alternative, we developed a value-of-information analysis from the medical device manufacturer's perspective. The consequences of use errors not detected during usability testing and the errors' probability of occurrence were embedded in a loss function. The value of further testing was assessed as a reduction in the expected loss for the manufacturer. The optimal sample size was determined using the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS) (the difference between the value provided by new participants and the cost of their inclusion). RESULTS: The value-of-information approach was applied to a real usability test of a needle-free adrenaline autoinjector. The initial estimate (performed on the first n = 20 participants) gave an optimal sample size of 100 participants and an ENBS of €255 453. This estimation was updated iteratively as new participants were included. After the inclusion of 90 participants, the ENBS was null for any sample size; hence, the cost of adding more participants outweighed the expected value of information, and therefore, the study could be stopped. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, our method seems to be highly suitable for sample size estimation in the usability testing of medical devices before market access.

A Systematic Review of Health Technology Assessments of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies in Young Compared With Older Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to identify sources of variability in cost-effectiveness analyses of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, evaluated by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, focusing on young compared with older patients. METHODS: HTA evaluations in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included from Australia, Canada, England, Norway, and the United States. Key clinical evidence, economic approach, and outcomes (costs, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) were summarized. RESULTS: Fourteen HTA evaluations were identified (5 ALL, 9 DLBCL [4 tisagenlecleucel, 5 axicabtagene]). Analyses were naive comparisons of prospective single-arm studies for the CAR-Ts with retrospective cohort studies for the comparators. Key clinical evidence and economic model approaches were generally consistent by CAR-T and indication, although outcomes varied. Notably, incremental QALYs varied substantially in ALL (3.67-10.6 QALYs gained), whereas variation in DLBCL was less (1.21-1.97 [tisagenlecleucel], 1.97-3.40 [axicabtagene]). Discounting of costs and outcomes varied, with the highest QALYs generated for tisagenlecleucel in ALL (10.95) associated with the lowest discount rate (1.5%) and vice versa (4.97 QALYs; 5% discount rate). The approach to extrapolation of overall survival data varied, even where the same empirical data were used. CONCLUSION: Modeled, long-term treatment benefit in young patients may be associated with greater uncertainty compared with adults because of potential life-long benefits with cell and gene therapies. This reflects the methodological challenges identified by HTA agencies associated with single-arm, short-term studies.

Implementation Barriers to Value of Information Analysis in Health Technology Decision Making: Results From a Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Value of information (VOI) analysis can support health technology assessment decision making, but it is a long way from being standard use. The objective of this study was to understand barriers to the implementation of VOI analysis and propose actions to overcome these. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation of VOI analysis use within decision making on tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for use in the Dutch breast cancer population screening. Based on steering committee meeting attendance and regular meetings with analysts, we developed a list of barriers to VOI use, which were analyzed using an established diffusion model. We proposed actions to address these barriers. Barriers and actions were discussed and validated in a workshop with stakeholders representing patients, clinicians, regulators, policy advisors, researchers, and the industry. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on groups of barriers, which included characteristics of VOI analysis itself, stakeholder's attitudes, analysts' and policy makers' skills and knowledge, system readiness, and implementation in the organization. Observed barriers did not only pertain to VOI analysis itself but also to formulating the objective of the assessment, economic modeling, and broader aspects of uncertainty assessment. Actions to overcome these barriers related to organizational changes, knowledge transfer, cultural change, and tools. CONCLUSIONS: This in-depth analysis of barriers to implementation of VOI analysis and resulting actions and tools may be useful to health technology assessment organizations that wish to implement VOI analysis in technology assessment and research prioritization. Further research should focus on application and evaluation of the proposed actions in real-world assessment processes.

Accounting for Heterogeneity in Resource Allocation Decisions: Methods and Practice in UK Cancer Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of novel, more efficacious and expensive cancer therapies is increasing, resulting in significant treatment effect heterogeneity and complicated treatment and disease pathways. The aim of this study is to review the extent to which UK cancer technology appraisals (TAs) consider the impact of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic search of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence TAs of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer was undertaken for the period up to April 2020. For each TA, the pivotal clinical studies and economic evaluations were reviewed for considerations of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. The study critically reviews the use of subgroup analysis and real-world translation in economic evaluations, alongside specific attributes of the economic modeling framework. RESULTS: The search identified 49 TAs including 49 economic models. In total, 804 subgroup analyses were reported across 69 clinical studies. The most common stratification factors were age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, with 15% (119 of 804) of analyses demonstrating significantly different clinical outcomes to the main population; economic subgroup analyses were undertaken in only 17 TAs. All economic models were cohort-level with the majority described as partitioned survival models (39) or Markov/semi-Markov models. The impact of real-world heterogeneity on disease progression estimates was only explored in 2 models. CONCLUSION: The ability of current modeling approaches to capture patient and treatment effect heterogeneity is constrained by their limited flexibility and simplistic nature. This study highlights a need for the use of more sophisticated modeling methods that enable greater consideration of real-world heterogeneity.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. METHODS: We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. RESULTS: A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. CONCLUSION: Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

The Use of Decision Analytic Modeling in the Evaluation of Surgical Innovations: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to map how decision analytic models are used in surgical innovation (in which research phase, with what aim) and to understand how challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions are incorporated. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in 2018. We included original articles using a decision analytic model to compare surgical strategies. We included modeling studies of surgical innovations. General, innovation, and modeling characteristics were extracted, as were outcomes, recommendations, and handling of challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions (learning curve, incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, quality variation, organizational impact). RESULTS: We included 46 studies. The number of studies increased with each research phase, from 4% (n = 2) in the preclinical phase to 40% (n = 20) in phase 3 studies. Eighty-one studies were excluded because they investigated established surgical procedures, indicating that modeling is predominantly applied after the innovation process. Regardless of the research stage, the aim to determine cost-effectiveness was most frequently identified (n = 40, 87%), whereas exploratory aims (eg, exploring when a strategy becomes cost-effective) were less common (n = 9, 20%). Most challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions were rarely incorporated in models (eg, learning curve [n = 1, 2%], organizational impact [n = 2, 4%], and incremental innovation [n = 1, 2%]), except for dynamic pricing (n = 10, 22%) and quality variation (n = 6, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: In surgical innovation, modeling is predominantly used in later research stages to assess cost-effectiveness. The exploratory use of modeling seems still largely overlooked in surgery; therefore, the opportunity to inform research and development may not be optimally used.

Vignette-Based Utilities: Usefulness, Limitations, and Methodological Recommendations.

Health technology assessment agencies often prefer that utilities used to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are derived using standardized methods, such as generic preference-based measures completed by patients in clinical trials. However, there are situations when no standardized approach is feasible or appropriate for a specific medical condition or treatment that must be represented in a CUA. When this occurs, vignette-based methods are often used to estimate utilities. A vignette (sometimes called a "scenario," "health state description," "health state vignette," or "health state") is a description of a health state that is valued in a preference elicitation task to obtain a utility estimate. This method is sometimes the only feasible way to estimate utilities representing a concept that is important for a CUA. Consequently, vignette-based studies continue to be conducted and published, with the resulting utilities used in economic models to inform decision making about healthcare resource allocation. Despite the potential impact of vignette-based utilities on medical decision making, there is no published guidance or review of this methodology. This article provides recommendations for researchers, health technology assessment reviewers, and policymakers who may be deciding whether to use vignette-based methods, designing a vignette study, using vignette-based utilities in a CUA, or evaluating a CUA that includes vignette-based utilities. Recommendations are provided on: (A) when to use vignette-based utilities, (B) methods for developing vignettes, (C) valuing vignettes, (D) use of vignette-based utilities in models, and (E) limitations of vignette methods.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs. RESULTS: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing. CONCLUSIONS: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

A Review of Current Approaches to Defining and Valuing Innovation in Health Technology Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The growing focus on the value of new drugs for patients and society has led to a more differentiated notion of innovation in the context of pharmaceutical products. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the current debate about the definition and assessment of innovation and how innovation is considered in reimbursement and pricing decisions. METHODS: To compile the relevant literature, we followed a 2-step approach. First, we searched for peer-reviewed literature that deals with the definition of pharmaceutical innovation. Second, we reviewed health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines of 11 selected countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands) regarding aspects of innovation that are currently considered as relevant by the respective HTA bodies. RESULTS: All countries in our sample use 1 of 2 types of reward mechanism for novel drugs that they consider provide some sort of benefit. Generally, the focus is on the therapeutic benefit of a drug, whereas, depending on the exact arrangement, other aspects can also be taken into account. A reduction in side effects and aspects of treatment convenience can be invoked in some of the countries. Mostly, however, they are not considered unless they are already captured in the clinical outcomes used to measure the therapeutic benefit. CONCLUSION: Our review shows that although the health economic literature discusses a range of aspects on how innovation may generate value even without providing an immediate added therapeutic benefit (or on top of it), these are only selectively considered in the reviewed HTA guidelines. For most part, only the added therapeutic value is crucial when it comes to pricing and reimbursement decisions.

The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4].Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.

Health Technology Assessment and Health Care Reimbursement in the European Union: Permissive Dissensus and the Limits of Harmonization through the Backdoor.

Member states have consistently limited the European Union's competences in the area of health care reimbursement. Despite these efforts, there has been a slow but steady tendency toward harmonization of a key tool in reimbursement decision-making: health technology assessment (HTA), a multidisciplinary evaluation of "value for money" of medicines, devices, diagnostics, and interventions, which provides expert advice for reimbursement decisions. This article examines the origins of this paradoxical appetite for harmonization as well as of the dissensus that has, at the moment, somewhat stalled further integration in HTA. It finds that the prointegration neofunctionalist "permissive dissensus" is still present in decision making on HTA but potentially offset by dissensus or outright opposition from key actors, including member states and the medical device industry. These actors are able to decipher the potential consequences of highly technical issues, such as HTA, for national systems of social protection. Despite that, they have little interest in politicizing the issue, potentially opening the door to integrative policy solutions in the future.

Shedding Light on Reimbursement Policies of Companion Diagnostics in European Countries.

OBJECTIVES: Ensuring access to precision medicine has been an issue because in some European countries, desynchronized reimbursement decision-making occurs between the medicine and the companion diagnostic (CDx). This has resulted in cases in which precision medicine is reimbursed but not the CDx. In overcoming this issue, an alignment of the decision-making process for reimbursement between the 2 entities should be considered. As pharmaceutical reimbursement procedures are meticulously covered in the literature, we set out to systematically map in vitro diagnostic (IVD) reimbursement procedures and identify policies for aligning these procedures with the pharmaceutical reimbursement procedures. METHODS: We selected 8 European countries for this analysis. For each country, we characterized the national benefit basket entailing the IVD medical acts in outpatient care, evaluated the procedure for inclusion, and identified alternative reimbursement practices for CDx. Targeted searches, using publicly accessible sources, were conducted to identify relevant reimbursement policies and laws. RESULTS: We systematically describe the reimbursement process in 8 European countries. Alternative procedures for CDx reimbursement were identified in Belgium and Germany. Alternative policies attributed to the practice of precision medicine were identified in England and Italy. In France, some CDx are included in the "coverage with evidence" development program. Specifically, the health technology assessment agencies of France and England commented on the assessment of companion diagnostics and their clinical utility. CONCLUSION: CDx reimbursement procedures have recently been implemented in some countries. This was seemingly done primarily to ensure access to the precision medicine and only secondary to the value they would provide.

Managed Entry Agreements: Policy Analysis From the European Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Mounting pressures on the healthcare system, such as budget constraints and new, costly health technologies reaching the market, have pushed payers and manufacturers to engage in managed entry agreements (MEAs) to address uncertainty and facilitate market access. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to illustrate the current landscape of MEAs in Europe and to analyze the main hurdles they face in implementation, providing a policy perspective. METHODS: We conducted a health policy analysis based on a literature review and described the emergence, classification, current use, and implementation obstacles of MEAs in Europe. RESULTS: Throughout Europe, uncertainty and high prices of health technologies have pushed stakeholders towards MEAs. Two main types of MEAs were applied heavily, finance-based agreements (FBAs) and performance-based agreements, including individual performance-based agreements and coverage with evidence development (CED). Service-based agreements have not been as heavily considered so far, yet are increasingly used. Many European countries are turning to CEDs to address uncertainty and facilitate market access while negotiating the pricing and reimbursement rates of products. Despite the interest in CEDs, European countries have moved toward FBAs due to the complexities and burdens associated with PBAs. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, in Europe, with the exception of Italy, where MEAs have proven to be inefficient, MEAs are predominantly FBAs dedicated to addressing cost containment from payers' perspective and external reference pricing from the manufacturers' perspective. It has been speculated that MEAs will disappear in the medium-term as they are counterproductive for extending patient access and emergence of innovation. To inform value-based decision making and allow early access to innovative medicines, CEDs should be revisited.

Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the use of economic evaluation (EE) in healthcare decision making is influenced by the social values and institutional context in a given country. METHODS: We developed and tested a conceptual framework for the 36 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The countries were divided into two groups based on the extent of their use of EE in drug reimbursement. The key social values were efficiency, equity, and personal responsibility, measured in an international survey. Countries were classified based on their institutional context in terms of their general welfare paradigm/type of healthcare system and the administrative tradition to which they belong. We performed correlation tests and ran path analysis regression models to test our hypotheses. RESULTS: EE high users included significantly more Beveridge-type systems (50% vs 31%) and fewer Bismarck-type (15% vs 56%). Napoleonic tradition countries seemed to reject personal responsibility in health (r = -0.511, P = .009), whereas Germanic tradition countries embraced it (r = 0.572, P = .003); Anglo-American tradition countries exhibited a significant association with efficiency (r = 0.444, P = .026), whereas Scandinavian tradition countries appeared to reject it as a criterion for rationing in healthcare (r = -0.454, P = .023). No significant direct association was found between social values and use of EE. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory analysis suggests that institutional context and, indirectly, social values may play a role in shaping the use of EE in healthcare decision making. Because of the differences among countries in terms of institutional context, which may in part be influenced by social values, it is unlikely that there will ever be a single, harmonious approach to the use of EE.

Economic Evaluation for Pricing and Reimbursement of New Drugs in Spain: Fable or Desideratum?

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of healthcare technologies has become in many countries a basic tool for reimbursement, pricing and purchasing decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to examine the institutional, legal, and political factors that have impeded the application of economic evaluation and the criterion of efficiency in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain. METHODS: Narrative description of the current institutional framework for the use of economic evaluation in pricing and reimbursement in Spain, legal and policy framework in the field of evaluation of new medicines, and stakeholder initiatives and policies related to the use of economic evaluation outside of the pricing and reimbursement process. RESULTS: Spain has an institutional framework created and established over the last years that could have facilitated a formal use of economic evaluation in the process of pricing and reimbursement. Nevertheless, the real use of economic evaluation at the central or regional level is still unknown, although application of the efficiency criterion, linking to cost-effectiveness, has been clearly required by Spanish laws and regulations at the national level. We highlight a certain degree of moral hazard from the central government that is not directly responsible for the budget impact of reimbursement and pricing decisions. There are currently a number of ongoing initiatives in the field of economic evaluation by various agents, but they remain uncoordinated. CONCLUSIONS: Poor governance at the highest level of decision making is the main reason for the lack of interest in economic evaluation. A profound political change, supported by transparency and accountability, is required before the criterion of efficiency can be fully considered in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain.

Value of Information Analysis for Research Decisions-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Healthcare resource allocation decisions made under conditions of uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal. In a resource constrained system in which there is a fixed budget, these suboptimal decisions will result in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to make better resource allocation decisions. This value can be quantified using a value of information (VOI) analysis. This report, from the ISPOR VOI Task Force, introduces VOI analysis, defines key concepts and terminology, and outlines the role of VOI for supporting decision making, including the steps involved in undertaking and interpreting VOI analyses. The report is specifically aimed at those tasked with making decisions about the adoption of healthcare or the funding of healthcare research. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing the results of VOI analyses.

The Emerging Social Science Literature on Health Technology Assessment: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Social scientists have paid increasing attention to health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides an overview of existing social scientific literature on HTA, with a focus on sociology and political science and their subfields. METHODS: Narrative review of key pieces in English. RESULTS: Three broad themes recur in the emerging social science literature on HTA: the drivers of the establishment and concrete institutional designs of HTA bodies; the effects of institutionalized HTA on pricing and reimbursement systems and the broader society; and the social and political influences on HTA decisions. CONCLUSION: Social scientists bring a focus on institutions and social actors involved in HTA, using primarily small-N research designs and qualitative methods. They provide valuable critical perspectives on HTA, at times challenging its otherwise unquestioned assumptions. However, they often leave aside questions important to the HTA practitioner community, including the role of culture and values. Closer collaboration could be beneficial to tackle new relevant questions pertaining to HTA.