The aim of the 2022 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) was to discuss experiences and challenges around health technology assessment (HTA) capacity building for both HTA agencies and companies in the Asia region and to identify possible solutions as part of a capacity building roadmap.

Discussions during the 2022 APF, informed by a pre-meeting survey of HTA agencies and industry attendees from the region, form the basis of this paper.

HTA is an essential element of priority-setting in healthcare; however, the scarcity of skilled technical HTA practitioners is a rate-limiting step in the conduct of HTA. The lack of investment in HTA and the political will to mandate the use of HTA in decision-making may be due to a lack of understanding of the value of the HTA process, and how HTA is interpreted and used in the healthcare decision-making process.

Increased demand for HTA is created when the value of HTA is recognized. HTA capacity-building challenges may be mitigated by educating stakeholders, particularly policymakers, on the value of, and the need to invest in, HTA as a transparent process to ensure equitable access to health care for all. Investigating a means of funding and implementing an HTA intern program between agencies, in partnership with industry, to facilitate a supportive environment to foster HTA skills and knowledge, build capacity or strengthen existing capacity should be a priority.

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA).

A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into “higher added value” and “lower or no added value”, while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value.

189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47).

A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

While patient participation in individual health technology assessments (HTAs) has been frequently described in the literature, patient and citizen participation at the organizational level is less described and may be less understood and practiced in HTA bodies. We aimed to better understand its use by describing current practice.

To elicit descriptive case studies and insights we conducted semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires with HTA body staff and patients and citizens participating at the organizational level in Belgium, France, Quebec, Scotland, and Wales.

We identified examples of organizational participation in managerial aspects: governance, defining patient involvement processes, evaluation processes and methods, and capacity building. Mechanisms included consultation, collaboration, and membership of standing (permanent) groups. These were sometimes combined. Participants were usually from umbrella patient organizations and patient associations, as well as individual patients and citizens.

Although the concept, participation at the organizational level, is not well-established, we observed a trend toward growth in each jurisdiction. Some goals were shared for this participation, but HTA bodies focused more on instrumental goals, especially improving participation in HTAs, while patients and citizens were more likely to offer democratic and developmental goals beyond improving participation processes.

Our findings provide rationales for organizational-level participation from the perspectives of HTA bodies and patients. The case studies provide insights into how to involve participants and who may be seen as legitimate participants. These findings may be useful to HTA bodies, the patient sector, and communities when devising an organizational-level participation framework.

Many publicly funded health systems use a mix of privately and publicly operated providers of care to deliver elective surgical services. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of privately operated but publicly funded provision of surgical services for adult patients who had cataract or orthopedic surgery within publicly funded health systems in high-income countries.

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and EBSCO EconLit) were searched on 26 March 2021, and gray literature sources were searched on 6 April 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies, and extracted data. The outcomes evaluated include accessibility, acceptability, safety, clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and cost/cost-effectiveness.

Twenty-nine primary studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized narratively. We found mixed results across each of our reported outcomes. Wait times were shorter for patients treated in private facilities. There was evidence that some private facilities cherry-pick or cream-skim by selecting less complex patients, which increases the postoperative length of stay and costs for public facilities, restricts access to private facilities for certain groups of patients, and increases inequality within the health system. Seven studies found improved safety outcomes in private facilities, noting that private patients had a lower preoperative risk of complications. Only two studies reported cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. One costing study concluded that private facilities’ costs were lower than those of public facilities, and a cost–utility study showed that private contracting to reduce public waiting times for joint replacement was cost-effective.

Limited evidence exists that private-sector contracts address existing healthcare delivery problems. Value for money also remains to be evaluated properly.

The objective of this research was to evaluate managed access policy in England, drawing upon the expertise of a range of stakeholders involved in its implementation.

Seven focus groups were conducted with payer and health technology assessment representatives, clinicians, and representatives from industry and patient/carer organizations within England. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis to identify stakeholders’ views on the successes and challenges of managed access policy.

Stakeholders discussed the many aims of managed access within the National Health Service in England, and how competing aims had affected decision making. While stakeholders highlighted a number of priorities within eligibility criteria for managed access agreements (MAAs), stakeholders agreed that strict eligibility criteria would be challenging to implement due to the highly variable nature of innovative technologies and their indications. Participants highlighted challenges faced with implementing MAAs, including evidence generation, supporting patients during and after the end of MAAs, and agreeing and reinforcing contractual agreements with industry.

Managed access is one strategy that can be used by payers to resolve uncertainty for innovative technologies that present challenges for reimbursement and can also deliver earlier access to promising technologies for patients. However, participants cautioned that managed access is not a “silver bullet,” and there is a need for greater clarity about the aims of managed access and how these should be prioritized in decision making. Discussions between key stakeholders involved in managed access identified challenges with implementing MAAs and these experiences should be used to inform future managed access policy.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is growing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to ensure optimal use of limited resources. However, the impact of HTAs on decision making in LMICs has been limited. The study aimed to provide an overview of Turkiye’s progress since establishing the first HTA agency in 2012.

The web sites of three national HTA agencies in Turkiye were searched for HTA guidelines and national HTA reports. The HTA guidelines were assessed by two researchers independently against the key principles of HTA developed by Drummond et al., and the HTA reports against the national guidelines.

The study included one HTA guideline and eight national HTA reports. The guideline included very limited technical guidance. Compliance with the principles was poor to moderate, and significant methodological limitations were identified. The reports were inconsistent regarding the scope and the HTA assessment criteria. The link between HTA findings, HTA decision making, and health policies were not clear.

The inconsistencies between the reports and the methodological limitations demonstrate the need for national HTA guidelines. Improving the characteristics of the HTA might impact implementation. Among the key issues is transparency regarding priority setting, the HTA process, and decision making.

Establishing and adopting national HTA guidelines at international standards is needed. Involving external scientific committees and health economists in the HTA processes might help ensure that the key principles of HTA are followed. The study findings might be helpful for countries that are developing their HTA systems.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) is a rare hematological disease whose clinical management includes caplacizumab along with plasma exchange and immunosuppression, according to international guidelines. Caplacizumab has been available in Colombia since 2022. This study seeks to determine the therapeutic classification of caplacizumab according to the methodology of the Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud.

The classification was carried out through a deliberative process following the modified Delphi technique, with a panel of experts, made up of four hemato-oncologists, a pharmaceutical chemist, and a patient. The results of effectiveness and safety obtained through a systematic review, therapeutic thresholds (clinical significance), and degree of acceptability (willingness to use the technology) were used for the classification.

Fourteen effectiveness and safety outcomes were submitted for the classification process. Caplacizumab showed clinical significance for some effectiveness outcomes, was not considered inferior in terms of safety, and displayed acceptability of use. Through consensus, the panel determined that caplacizumab plus the standard regimen is superior to the standard regimen in terms of treatment response and composite outcome, and no different for the other effectiveness and safety outcomes. Likewise, in overall terms, the panel determined that caplacizumab together with the standard regimen is superior to the standard regimen.

Treatment with caplacizumab together with the standard regimen was considered superior to the standard regimen for the treatment of patients with aTTP, as it showed clinically significant benefits in critical outcomes for decision making, and a safety profile no different to its comparator.

Though there have been longstanding discussions on the value of ethics in health technology assessment (HTA), less awareness exists on ethics information retrieval methods. This study aimed to scope available evidence and determine current practices for ethics information retrieval in HTA.

Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, LISTA, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Once a list of relevant articles was determined, citation tracking was conducted via Scopus. HTA agency websites were searched for published guidance on ethics searching, and for reports which included ethical analyses. Methods sections of each report were analyzed to determine the databases, subject headings, and keywords used in search strategies. The team also reached out to information specialists for insight into current search practices.

Findings from this study indicate that there is still little published guidance from HTA agencies, few HTAs that contain substantial ethical analysis, and even less information on the methodology for ethics information retrieval. The researchers identified twenty-five relevant HTAs. Ten of these reports did not utilize subject-specific databases outside health sciences. Eight reports published ethics searches, with significant overlap in subject headings and text words.

This scoping study of current practice in HTA ethics information retrieval highlights findings of previous studies—while ethics analysis plays a crucial role in HTA, methods for literature searching remain relatively unclear. These findings provide insight into the current state of ethics searching, and will inform continued work on filter development, database selection, and grey literature searching.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the standard framework for informing the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. The importance of considering all relevant intervention strategies and appropriate incremental comparisons have both long been recognized in CEA. Failure to apply methods correctly can lead to suboptimal policies. Our objective is to assess if CEAs of infant pneumococcal vaccination apply appropriate methods with respect to the completeness of strategies assessed and incremental comparisons between them.

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases and performed a comparative analysis of the retrieved pneumococcal vaccination CEAs. We checked the appropriateness of the incremental analyses by attempting to replicate the published incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios from the reported costs and health effects.

Our search returned twenty-nine eligible articles. Most studies failed to recognize one or more intervention strategies (n = 21). Incremental comparisons were questionable in four CEAs and insufficient reporting of cost and health effect estimates was identified in three studies. Overall, we only found four studies that made appropriate comparisons between all strategies. Lastly, study findings appear to be strongly associated with manufacturer sponsorship.

We found considerable scope for improvement regarding strategy comparison in the infant pneumococcal vaccination literature. To prevent overestimation of the CE of new vaccines, we urge greater adherence to existing guidelines recommending that all available strategies are evaluated to capture relevant comparators for CE evaluation. Closer adherence to existing guidelines will generate better evidence, leading to more effective vaccination policies.

Early access schemes (EASs) are approaches used by payers to balance and facilitate earlier patient access to innovative health technologies while evidence generation is ongoing. Schemes require investment from payers and are associated with significant risk since not all technologies will be routinely reimbursed. The purpose of this study was to gain the perspectives of policy experts about the key challenges for EASs and potential solutions for their optimal design and implementation.

Two virtual workshops were convened including (i) UK-based policy experts (England, Wales, and Scotland) and (ii) representatives from multiple healthcare systems (England, France, Sweden, Canada, Poland, and Norway). Participants were encouraged to share their experiences with EASs in their healthcare system and highlight key challenges for policy makers. Discussions were transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis.

Participants agreed that EASs have value when targeted toward innovative technologies with the potential for significant clinical benefit in an area of high unmet need. Participants discussed potential solutions to the challenges faced by payers implementing EASs, including defining eligibility criteria, supporting evidence generation, and approaches to reimbursement.

Participants agreed that EASs are one possible solution for their healthcare systems and have the potential to deliver significant clinical value to patients. However, widespread adoption of EASs is limited due to concerns about the risks for patients and healthcare budgets, further solutions are needed to deliver EASs for targeted therapies.

Spain incorporated in 2020 changes in its health technology assessment (HTA), pricing, and reimbursement system for medicines including publishing reports, development of networks of experts, or consultation with stakeholders. Despite these changes, it is unclear how deliberative frameworks are applied and the process has been criticized for not being sufficiently transparent. This study analyses the level of implementation of deliberative processes in HTA for medicines in Spain.

We review the grey literature and summarize the Spanish HTA, pricing, and reimbursement process of medicines. We apply the deliberative processes for HTA checklist, developed to assess the overall context of the deliberative process, and identify the stakeholders involved and type of involvement following the framework for evidence-informed deliberative processes, a framework for benefit package design that aims to optimize the legitimacy of decision making.

In the Spanish HTA, pricing, and reimbursement process deliberation takes place in order to exchange viewpoints and reach common ground, mainly during the prioritization, assessment, and appraisal steps. It is closed to the public, not clearly summarized in published documents and limited to the Ministry of Health, the regulatory agency, other Ministries, and experts with mostly clinical and/or pharmaceutical background. The views of stakeholders are only represented through consultation. Communication is the most commonly used form of stakeholder engagement.

Despite improvements in transparency of the Spanish HTA process for evaluating medicines, aspects related to stakeholder involvement and implementation of deliberative frameworks need further attention in order to achieve further legitimacy of the process.

In 2020, Canada spent 12.9 percent of its GDP on healthcare, of which 3 percent was on medical devices. Early adoption of innovative surgical devices is mostly driven by physicians and delaying adoption can deprive patients of important medical treatments. This study aimed to identify the criteria in Canada used to decide on the adoption of a surgical device and identify challenges and opportunities.

This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. The search strategy included Canada’s provinces, different surgical fields, and adoption. Embase, Medline, and provincial databases were searched. Grey literature was also searched. Data were analyzed by reporting the criteria that were used for technology adoption. Finally, a thematic analysis by subthematic categorization was conducted to arrange the criteria found.

Overall, 155 studies were found. Seven were hospital-specific studies and 148 studies were from four provinces with publicly available Web sites for technology assessment committees (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec). Seven main themes of criteria were identified: economic, hospital-specific, technology-specific, patients/public, clinical outcomes, policies and procedures, and physician specific. However, standardization and specific weighted criteria for decision making in the early adoption stage of novel technologies are lacking in Canada.

Specific criteria for decision making in the early adoption stage of novel surgical technologies are lacking. These criteria need to be identified, standardized, and applied in order to provide innovative, and the most effective healthcare to Canadians.

Uncertainty is a fundamental component of decision making regarding access to and pricing and reimbursement of drugs. The context-specific interpretation and mitigation of uncertainty remain major challenges for decision makers. Following the 2021 HTAi Global Policy Forum, a cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary HTAi-DIA Working Group (WG) was initiated to develop guidance to support stakeholder deliberation on the systematic identification and mitigation of uncertainties in the regulatory-HTA interface.

Six online discussions among WG members (Dec 2021–Sep 2022) who examined the output of a scoping review, two literature-based case studies and a survey; application of the initial guidance to a real-world case study; and two international conference panel discussions.

The WG identified key concepts, clustered into twelve building blocks that were collectively perceived to define uncertainty: “unavailable,” “inaccurate,” “conflicting,” “not understandable,” “random variation,” “information,” “prediction,” “impact,” “risk,” “relevance,” “context,” and “judgment.” These were converted into a checklist to explain and define whether any issue constitutes a decision-relevant uncertainty. A taxonomy of domains in which uncertainty may exist within the regulatory-HTA interface was developed to facilitate categorization. The real-world case study was used to demonstrate how the guidance may facilitate deliberation between stakeholders and where additional guidance development may be needed.

The systematic approach taken for the identification of uncertainties in this guidance has the potential to facilitate understanding of uncertainty and its management across different stakeholders involved in drug development and evaluation. This can improve consistency and transparency throughout decision processes. To further support uncertainty management, linkage to suitable mitigation strategies is necessary.

To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model.

The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question.

The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear.

The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries’ assessments and identify alignments and divergences.

A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars.

Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT–NL) to 188 (BE–IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62–74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself.

Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

This study explored experts’ views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts’ perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools.

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively.

Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements.

The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health state progression, incremental cost, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of NMES compared to no treatment, continuous airway pressure (CPAP), or oral appliance (OA) treatment. The base case assumed no cardiovascular (CV) benefit for any of the interventions, while potential CV benefit was considered in scenario analyses. Therapy effectiveness was based on a recent multi-center trial for NMES, and on the TOMADO and MERGE studies for OA and CPAP. Costs, considered from a United States payer perspective, were projected over lifetime for a 48-year-old cohort, 68% of whom were male. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of USD150,000 per QALY gained was applied.

From a baseline AHI of 10.2 events/hour, NMES, OA and CPAP reduced the AHI to 6.9, 7.0 and 1.4 events/hour respectively. Long-term therapy adherence was estimated at 65-75% for NMES and 55% for both OA and CPAP. Compared to no treatment, NMES added between 0.268 and 0.536 QALYs and between USD7,481 and USD17,445 in cost, resulting in ICERs between USD15,436 and USD57,844 per QALY gained. Depending on long-term adherence assumptions, either NMES or CPAP were found to be the preferred treatment option, with NMES becoming more attractive with younger age and assuming CPAP was not used for the full night in all patients.

NMES might be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild OSA.