Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?

  • The International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Peter J. Neumann (a1), Michael F. Drummond (a2), Bengt Jönsson (a3), Bryan R. Luce (a4), J. Sanford Schwartz (a5), Uwe Siebert (a6) and Sean D. Sullivan (a7)...

Abstract

Previously, our group—the International Working Group for HTA Advancement—proposed a set of fifteen Key Principles that could be applied to health technology assessment (HTA) programs in different jurisdictions and across a range of organizations and perspectives. In this commentary, we investigate the extent to which these principles are supported and used by fourteen selected HTA organizations worldwide. We find that some principles are broadly supported: examples include being explicit about HTA goals and scope; considering a wide range of evidence and outcomes; and being unbiased and transparent. Other principles receive less widespread support: examples are addressing issues of generalizability and transferability; being transparent on the link between HTA findings and decision-making processes; considering a full societal perspective; and monitoring the implementation of HTA findings. The analysis also suggests a lack of consensus in the field about some principles—for example, considering a societal perspective. Our study highlights differences in the uptake of key principles for HTA and indicates considerable room for improvement for HTA organizations to adopt principles identified to reflect good HTA practices. Most HTA organizations espouse certain general concepts of good practice—for example, assessments should be unbiased and transparent. However, principles that require more intensive follow-up—for example, monitoring the implementation of HTA findings—have received little support and execution.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Aronson, N. Establishing key principles for health technology assessment. ISPOR 13th Annual International Meeting. 2008.
2. Banta, HD. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362368.
3. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361422.
4. Drummond, M, Grubert, N. International trends in the use of health economic data. Waltham MA: Spectrum Report, Decision Resources; 2007.
5. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.
6. Emanuel, EJ, Fuchs, VR, Garber, AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:13231325.
7. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The use of health technology assessments (HTA) to evaluate medicines: EFPIA key principles. Brussels: EFPIA; 2005.
8. Garcia-Altes, A, Ondategui-Parra, S, Neumann, PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300310.
9. Hailey, D. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362368.
10. Hutton, J, McGrath, C, Frybourg, JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:1018.
11. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). http://www.inahta.org/HTA (accessed March 31, 2008).
12. Jonsson, B. IQWiG: An opportunity lost? Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:205207.
13. Luce, B, Cohen, RS. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):3341.
14. Martelli, F, La Torre, G, Di Ghionno, E, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:414424.
15. Neuhauser, D. Commentary on the article, “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362368.
16. Neumann, PJ, Sullivan, SD. Economic evaluation in the US: What is the missing link? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11631168.
17. Schwarzer, R, Siebert, U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305314.
18. Sullivan, SD, Watkins, J, Sweet, B, Ramsey, SD. Health technology assessment in health care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12:s39s44.

Keywords

Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?

  • The International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Peter J. Neumann (a1), Michael F. Drummond (a2), Bengt Jönsson (a3), Bryan R. Luce (a4), J. Sanford Schwartz (a5), Uwe Siebert (a6) and Sean D. Sullivan (a7)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed