Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Wija Oortwijn (a1), Laura Sampietro-Colom (a2) and Fay Habens (a3)


Background: In recent years, there has been a surge in the development of frameworks to assess the value of different types of health technologies to inform healthcare resource allocation. The reasons for, and the potential of, these value frameworks were discussed during the 2017 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum Meeting.

Methods: This study reflects the discussion, drawing on presentations from invited experts and Policy Forum members, as well as a background paper.

Results: The reasons given for a proliferation of value frameworks included: rising healthcare costs; more complex health technology; perceived disconnect between price and value in some cases; changes in societal values; the need for inclusion of additional considerations, such as ethical issues; and greater empowerment of clinicians and patients in defining and using value frameworks. Many Policy Forum participants recommended learning from existing frameworks. Furthermore, there was a desire to agree on the core components of value frameworks, defining the additional value elements as necessary and considering how they might be measured and used in practice. Furthermore, adherence to the principles of transparency, predictability, broad stakeholder involvement, and accountability were widely supported, along with being forward looking, explicit, and consistent across decisions.

Conclusions: Value frameworks continue to evolve with significant implications for global incentives for innovation and access to health technologies. There is a role for the HTA community to address some of the key areas discussed during the meeting, such as defining the core components for assessing the value of a health technology.



Hide All
1. Carnegie Mellon University. Disruptive Health Technology Institute. What is disruptive health technology? (accessed April 10, 2017).
2. World Health Organization, Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. WHA67.23 Ninth plenary meeting, May 24, 2014 A67/VR/9. (accessed April 10, 2017).
3. Tanios, N, Wagner, M, Tony, M, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:456-465. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000573.
4. Health Technology Assessment international. Global Policy Forum. (accessed March 21, 2017).
5. Henshall, C, Schuller, T, on behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:1-7
6. Husereau, D, on behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum. 2016 policy forum background paper. Changing HTA paradigms, January 8, 2016. (accessed March 14, 2017).
7. Oortwijn, W, on behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum. 2017 Background paper. From theory to action: Developments in value frameworks to inform the allocation of health care resources. (accessed March 14, 2017).
8. Chatham House. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Chatham House Rule. (accessed March 14, 2017).
9. Westrich, K. Current landscape: Value assessment frameworks. Washington, DC: National Pharmaceutical Council; June 2016.
10. EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model. (accessed March 14, 2017).
11. Torbica, A, Drummond, M, Ferré, F, et al. Economic evaluation and health technology assessment in Europe and USA. A comparative analysis. Executive summary. Deliverable 4.1. MedtecHTA. February, 2015. (accessed March 14, 2017).
12. HTA network. EU Health Technology Assessment Network. Strategy for EU cooperation on Health Technology Assessment. Rome, October 29, 2014. (accessed March 14, 2017).
13. OECD. New health technologies: Managing access, value and sustainability. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017
14. Garrison, L, Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, Zamora, B. The value of knowing and knowing the value: Improving the health technology assessment of complementary diagnostics. White Paper. Office of Health Economics and EPEMED. 2016. (accessed March 14, 2017).
15. Hofmann, B, Cleemput, I, Bond, K, et al. Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:579-586.
16. Tarricone, R, Torbica, A, Drummond, M. Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: The MedtecHTA project. Health Econ. 2017 (Suppl 1):5-12.
17. Wahlster, P, Brereton, L, Burns, J, et al. Guidance on the integrated assessment of complex health technologies – The INTEGRATE-HTA Model [Online]. (accessed March 14, 2017).
18. Bach, PB. New math on drug cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1797-1799.
19. Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093-1103.
20. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Overview of the ICER value framework and proposals for an update for 2017-2018, 1 February, 2017. (accessed March 14, 2017).
21. Evans, M. No 9. Ethics. Reconciling conflicting values in health policy. In: Dargie, C, (Ed.). Policy futures for UK health, Technical Series, 1999.
22. Segone, M, ed. Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results. Geneva: UNICEF; 2009. (accessed March 14, 2017).
23. Baltussen, R, Jansen, M, Bijlmakers, L, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: The organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20:256-260.
24. World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. In: Figueras, J, McKee, M, eds. Health systems, health, wealth and societal well-being. Assessing the case for investing in health systems. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
25. Godman, B, Oortwijn, W, De Waure, C, et al. Links between pharmaceutical R&D models and access to affordable medicines. European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies. Policy Department A: Economic and scientific Policy. European Union, PE 587.321 EN. IP/A/ENVI/2015-06, October 2016. (accessed March 14, 2017).


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Oortwijn supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB
Supplementary materials

Oortwijn supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (16 KB)
16 KB


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