Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Spring 2009
Volume 11, Number 1
The role of HTA in coverage and pricing
decisions: A cross-country comparison
Contents
Corinna Sorenson
The role of HTA in 1
coverage and pricing
decisions: A cross-
country comparison Since the late 1970s, many European coun- who then render the final coverage and/or
tries have established health technology pricing determination. In countries with
assessment (HTA) systems to inform cov- advisory bodies (France, Germany, the
HTA in coverage 5 erage and pricing decisions. These countries Netherlands), the Ministry of Health over-
and reimbursement use HTA to systematically determine the sees the assessment process to some degree.1
decisions in France: relative ‘value for money’ provided by new
External organizations are sometimes
technologies and to give providers and
toward a new paradigm? involved in assessments. England’s National
patients information to make treatment Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
choices. This, in turn, serves to encourage the (NICE), for example, coordinates inde-
HTA in Germany: 6 efficient and effective use of health technolo- pendent reviews by academic research
gies and to support innovation by identifying centres. Moreover, almost all countries have
The new ‘frontier’ of
and rewarding high-value products. dedicated national HTA agencies that coordi-
IQWiG methods
This overview article explores the use of nate and disseminate assessment reports on
HTA in coverage and pricing decisions, with health technologies and other interventions.2
The use and impact 7 a focus on pharmaceuticals, in six European However, they are typically not involved in
of HTA in decision countries with established HTA systems – making coverage and pricing decisions.
making in the Denmark, England, France, Germany, the
Netherlands Netherlands and Sweden. Stakeholder involvement
The decisions resulting from HTA can have a
HTA functions and governance significant impact on treatment availability as
More haste, less 9 Coverage decisions based on HTA typically well as clinical practice. Consequently, a
speed? The emerging involve two stages: an assessment of a drug’s range of stakeholders, including policy
practice of HTA in the relative costs and benefits, followed by an makers, providers, industry, and patients, are
appraisal (interpretation and consideration) interested in the process and want to ensure
United Kingdom
of the evidence to inform coverage decisions. that their views are considered.
Each of the six countries has advisory or reg- Patients and consumer groups are the least
Emergence of HTA 10 ulatory HTA bodies, sometimes referred to as likely stakeholders to be involved in the
in Central and drug review bodies, involved in coverage assessment process. Increasingly, however,
Eastern Europe decision making (and sometimes pricing) several review bodies (in England, Germany
(Table 1). Both advisory and regulatory and Sweden) recognize the importance of
bodies conduct or coordinate assessments, involving patients and consumers, as they can
but only regulatory bodies have the remit to provide useful insight into a drug’s ‘real
make decisions about coverage and/or pricing world’ value. For example, NICE in England
based on the review. Advisory bodies, alter- has established a Citizens Council to gather
natively, make coverage and/or pricing rec- public perspectives on key social and ethical
ommendations to government authorities, issues, such as whether age and disease
The Observatory is a partnership between the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the Governments of Belgium, Finland,
Norway, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, the Veneto Region of Italy, the European Investment Bank, the World Bank,
the London School of Economics and Political Science and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Euro Obser ver V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1
Table 1: Key drug review and decision making bodies in select countries, 2008 life-threatening illnesses. England has led
efforts to shorten reviews by introducing
Review process Decision-making process fast-track processes such as Single
Country
Review Body - Role Function Pricing Coverage Technology Appraisals (STAs) (see UK
Denmark Reimbursement Committee Coverage DKMAa DKMA case study). These place more emphasis
of the Danish Medicines Agency on manufacturer data and less on exten-
(DKMA) – Regulatory sive external systematic review and
England National Institute for Health Coverage Department of NICE/Department
consultation, which allows drugs to be
and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – Healtha of Health available a few months after launch.
Regulatory
France National Health Authority, Coverage
Decision making and
Transparency Commission (TC) – implementation
Advisory Ministry of Health,
CEPS Social Affairs, and Applying HTA to coverage decisions
National Health Authority, Pricing
Social Insurance
Economic Committee for Health Following appraisal of the evidence,
Products (CEPS) – Regulatory review bodies employ a variety of criteria
Germany Institute for Quality and Efficiency Coverage and Federal Ministry of Health/ to inform coverage decisions. In each of
in Health Care (IQWiG) – pricing Association of Federal Joint the selected countries, a drug’s relative
Advisory Sickness Fundsa Committee therapeutic benefit is the most important
criterion in determining coverage status,
Netherlands Health Care Insurance Board, Coverage and Ministry of Health, Ministry of
Committee for Pharmaceutical pricing Welfare, and Health, Welfare, followed by cost-effectiveness (measured
Aid (CHF) – Advisory Sport and Sport using cost per quality-adjusted life year
(QALY) ratios.3 Cost-effectiveness is
Sweden Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Coverage and LFN LFN
particularly important for drugs that are
Agency (TLV) – Regulatoryb pricing
expensive and/or widely used, have new
a Decision-making influence is limited due to the use of free pricing, where prices are set by the manufacturer.
indications, or whose benefits differ by
b The TLV was previously named the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN).
indication or patient sub-group. England,
Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden
severity should be taken into account in Conducting assessments outline more explicitly the use of cost-
NICE reviews. effectiveness in decision making, whereas
Assessments involve many of the same
In all of the six countries, manufacturers its role in the review process is limited or
principles and processes across the six
are generally involved prior to the assess- not always clear in Denmark and France.
countries, but they often differ in key
ment process, when they submit a dossier The situation in France may be changing,
areas, such as selecting which drugs to
of evidence* to the review body. They are however (see France case study).
review, the type and quality of evidence
not usually engaged in the actual assess- required, and methodological Some countries use a cost-effectiveness or
ment or appraisal process. Involving approaches. Table 2 shows the various price threshold to establish whether a
industry throughout the HTA process national approaches to conducting assess- drug provides value for money and to
may be beneficial, given its role in pro- ments. Many countries publish guidelines determine coverage status. A threshold
ducing and interpreting much of the clin- outlining their evidence and methodolog- generally represents the amount of
ical data employed in assessments; ical requirements, but these often vary in money a society is willing to pay for an
however, it can be controversial, giving detail and transparency.** additional unit of health outcome (i.e., an
rise to fears that industry may reduce the additional QALY). Such ‘decision rules’
objectivity of assessments. It typically takes six months to two years
are often implicit and case-dependent.
to review pharmaceuticals for coverage,
Although stakeholder involvement is The value of the threshold varies by
which is often seen as a barrier to timely
generally resource intensive and may country, ranging from a maximum of
patient access to new products. France
introduce other challenges, such as €20,000 in the Netherlands to €45,000 in
and the Netherlands have introduced
extending the time required to complete Sweden.4,5 The Netherlands and Sweden
expedited review processes for highly-
assessments, it can enhance the relevance are considering adopting a revised
innovative drugs or for those treating
of and trust in the HTA process. approach that adjusts the threshold
according to need (disease severity) or
equity considerations (see the
* A dossier typically includes all available data and evidence regarding a pharmaceutical Netherlands case study). Instead of
(approved indications, clinical benefit and, sometimes, cost-effectiveness). employing a cost per QALY threshold,
** For country guidelines see: Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Germany has recently proposed the use
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research website, 2004. of an efficiency frontier (see Germany
Available at: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp case study).
2
V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1 Euro Obser ver
Other decision criteria used by countries started to use conditional approvals in met, then coverage may be withdrawn
include availability of treatment alterna- innovative ways to alleviate some of the and/or the price reduced. For example,
tives as well as public health and budget uncertainty normally associated with pre- after NICE (controversially) recom-
impact. Many stakeholders contend that market review, especially for new or mended against the use of various
more consideration should be given to highly-innovative products. England, products for multiple sclerosis, the
these factors and that greater trans- France, the Netherlands and Sweden have government established a risk-sharing
parency and explicitness is needed introduced risk-sharing agreements scheme with manufacturers to supply
regarding how they factor into the and/or coverage with evidence develop- these treatments on the National Health
decision process. ment (CED). These strategies link cov- Service (NHS). Under the scheme,
It is rare for a drug not be accepted for erage to conditions such as meeting patients were monitored annually and the
any level of coverage; rather, most are agreed cost, volume, market share and amount paid for the treatments was
approved with conditions (for example, cost-effectiveness targets and/or the col- adjusted on a sliding scale if patient
use only in certain indications or patient lection of post-market evidence and outcomes differed from agreed cost-
groups). Some countries have recently (re)evaluation. If the conditions are not effectiveness targets.
3
Euro Obser ver V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1
HTA evidence can also be used to strategies to enhance the implementation Consequently, more attention and
support pricing decisions, in what is of pharmaceutical coverage decisions resources are needed to improve strate-
termed ‘value-based pricing’ (VBP). and/or recommendations, including gies to enhance the drug review and
Sweden introduced VBP in 2002; cov- information dissemination strategies policy process and to support the use of
erage and pricing decisions are based on (newsletters) to apprise stakeholders of HTA in policy making.
an assessment of health needs and cost- recent decisions and policy changes
REFERENCES
effectiveness. For example, if the drug (England); collaboration with various
price requested by a manufacturer is experts to promote implementation at the 1. Hutton J et al. Framework for
unreasonably expensive in relation to the local level (Sweden); providing additional describing and classifying decision-making
benefits or value provided, the drug financial support to cover the cost of sup- systems using technology assessment to
would either not be covered or its price plying new pharmaceuticals (Denmark, determine the reimbursement of health
would be reduced. This approach has England, Sweden); and participation in technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J
been heralded as a mechanism to obtain international HTA networks (for Technol Assess 2006;21(1):10–8.
greater value for money and create a example, the European Network for 2. Garrido MV et al. Health Technology
stronger link between coverage and HTA) to facilitate methods development Assessment and Health Policy-Making in
pricing decisions. VBP is also being and enhance the transferability and Europe: Current Status, Challenges and
considered in England.6 transparency of HTA (England, France, Potential. Copenhagen: WHO, 2008.
Germany, Netherlands). Regulatory 3. Sorenson C, Drummond MF, Kanavos P.
While the assessment and appraisal
levers have also been used in Denmark Ensuring Value for Money in Health Care:
process typically occurs prior to launch,
and England to make decisions or the role of HTA in the European Union.
some countries, namely the Netherlands
guidance legally binding. Observatory Studies Series Report No. 11.
and Sweden, also undertake systematic
re-evaluation after a drug has been used Copenhagen: European Observatory on
in practice to identify products that do
Conclusions Health Systems and Policies, 2008.
HTA has assumed an increasing role in Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/
not demonstrate good value for money or
pharmaceutical coverage decisions in observatory/Publications/20080407_1
become obsolete. Evidence from ex-post
review is then used to determine areas for Europe. Not only does it contribute to 4. Zwart-van Rijkom JE et al. Differences
disinvestment (de-listing) or to modify evidence-based decision making, it also in attitudes, knowledge and use of eco-
pricing and coverage status, where appro- assists in identifying products that offer nomic evaluations in decision-making in
priate. Denmark has recently announced the most value for money. The six The Netherlands. The Dutch results from
a five-year review of the pricing and cov- countries reviewed here adopt different the EUROMET Project.
erage status of existing pharmaceuticals,7 approaches to using HTA in coverage Pharmacoeconomics 2002;18(2):149–60.
and Sweden has been evaluating all drugs decisions, but all strive to ensure rig- 5. Persson U, Hjelmgren J. Health services
approved prior to 2002. England has also orous, relevant, and transparent assess- need knowledge of how the public values
called for greater NICE involvement in ments. Countries increasingly recognize health. Lakartidningen
supporting disinvestment.8 that HTA is only useful if the process is 2003;100(43):3436–37. [in Swedish]
timely, the resulting recommendations
Implementing coverage decisions 6. UK Office of Fair Trading. The
are used by policy makers, and decisions
Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme:
In most of the six countries, national cov- are implemented. Consequently, many
An OFT Market Study. London: OFT,
erage decisions apply nationally, but in countries have introduced innovative
2007. Available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/
some countries, particularly Denmark, solutions to address these issues, such as
shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft885.pdf
England and Sweden, regional and/or risk-sharing agreements, expedited
local authorities have some discretion in reviews, and greater stakeholder involve- 7. Vogler S. PPRI Report. Brussels:
implementing national decisions. ment. Other strategies gaining traction European Commission and Austrian
Consequently, local coverage arrange- include greater use of HTA reviews for Federal Ministry of Health, Family and
ments may differ from national guide- other health technologies and interven- Youth, 2008. Available at: http://ppri.
lines at the margin. Such variations can be tions (for example, medical devices, oebig.at/index.aspx?Navigation=r|2|0-
attributed to a lack of additional funding public health programmes) and in other 8. Darzi A. High Quality Care for All:
and guidance to implement national cov- sectors (see the Netherlands case study). NHS Next Stage Review Final Report.
erage decisions, delayed local uptake of London: Department of Health, 2008.
The use of HTA in pharmaceutical cov-
guidance, poor financial planning by local Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/
erage decisions has grown substantially
authorities, insufficient health economics Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Pub
since the late 1990s and is likely to
expertise among local formulary commit- licationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_085825
expand further, as national policy makers
tees, and divergent local health needs.
continue to face cost pressures and
Successful implementation of coverage attempt to use evidence-based approaches Corinna Sorenson is Research Officer,
decisions is a key challenge for health to ensure the effectiveness, efficiency, and LSE Health, London School of Economics
systems. Review bodies use different sustainability of their health systems. and Political Science, UK.
4
V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1 Euro Obser ver
Role of HTA in coverage and Decisions on coverage depend on the If agreed volume levels are exceeded, the
level of SMR, which can range from price is lowered or companies are
pricing decisions insufficient to considerable (Table 1). required to provide rebates to the SHI. A
Benefits that are covered by the French product’s SMR and ASMR is reviewed
Information on the ASMR, denoting the
national statutory health insurance (SHI) once every five years.
level of therapeutic improvement, is used
are defined in explicit positive lists.
in subsequent price-setting. Drugs with
Medical goods or procedures are added to Movement toward considerations
major or important improvements and no
the positive list by either the Ministry of
Health (MoH), in the case of pharmaceuti-
competitors on the market are priced by of value for money
the pharmaceutical companies them-
cals and medical devices, or the SHI, in the As discussed, coverage and pricing deci-
selves, but are reviewed by the HAS
case of procedures, based on the recom- sions in France are principally based
pricing committee (Economic Committee
mendation of devoted consultative com- upon clinical efficacy, not on cost-effec-
for Health Products, CEPS) to ensure
mittees of the National Health Authority tiveness or value to society. By not taking
that prices are consistent with those of
(HAS). These committees are comprised into account cost-effectiveness or ‘value
main European markets. CEPS can also
of scientific experts, representatives of the for money’, it does not allow for priori-
consider the drug’s impact on public
MoH, SHI, and, when concerned, repre- tising public expenditure across different
health. Drugs with moderate improve-
sentatives of the industry. The recommen- health technologies. As highlighted in the
ment are likely to be priced slightly
dation of the committee(s) is also given to Overview article, this situation differs
above the nearest competitor (around
support price determinations. from other European countries.
15%) and those with no improvement are
HTA plays a central role in forming priced below the price of any competitors However, the situation may be changing.
HAS’s recommendation. To derive a already on the market. Most drugs In 2008, the Social Security Finance Act
coverage determination, HAS reviews assessed in 2007 were categorized as introduced the use of economic evalua-
evidence on the medical benefit of the having an SMR of 'important’, but an tion in HAS’s review and recommenda-
technology or intervention, reflecting its ASMR of ‘no therapeutic improvement’.2 tion. While this is considered a step
clinical efficacy and the severity of the forward, its use and implementation in
However, other criteria, in addition to
disease it is indicated to treat. In the case practice is uncertain and currently under
the results of HTA, are taken into
of drugs, the degree of medical benefit or discussion. A HAS Commission for
account in price-setting. In particular,
therapeutic value is represented by a Economic Evaluation and Public Health
consideration is given to projected sales
SMR (Service medical rendu) level. The (Commission évaluation économique et
levels, which depend on population need,
HAS Transparency Committee also de santé publique, CEESP) was estab-
recommended daily dosage, or the daily
assesses the relative medical benefit of the lished in July 2008 to oversee the integra-
cost of treatment. This information is
technology in comparison to similar tion of cost-effectiveness into public
used to establish price-volume agree-
available treatments (termed the ASMR, decision making as well as clinical prac-
ments between HAS and manufacturers.
amelioration du service medical rendu).1 tice. As currently envisioned, in the first
instance CCESP will issue a recommen-
dation on a drug's cost-effectiveness,
Table 1: Rate of coverage of medicines by level of SMR
which will be considered alongside the
SMR Serious disease Disease ‘not usually of a serious advice of the Transparency Commission.
(therapeutic value) (rate of coverage %) nature’ (rate of coverage %) HAS is also currently developing a soci-
etal benefit measure, SERC (service rendu
Major or considerable 65 35 à la collectivité), to capture not only the
medical and economic costs and benefits
Moderate or low 35 35 of health services, but also important
ethical, social, and legal considerations.3
Insufficient 0 0
The SERC would more closely resemble
5
Euro Obser ver V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1
6
V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1 Euro Obser ver
7
Euro Obser ver V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1
whether the new product meets evidence- from various backgrounds have the HTA will continue to be to support
based standards or is considered reason- opportunity to be involved in the decisions, not to prescribe them. Still, the
able and adequate care, which comes process. This will ensure greater accept- expansion of HTA throughout the health
down to a broad assessment of effective- ance of reimbursement decisions. care sector, like in medical specialist care,
ness. If this is indeed the case, an assess- should bring us closer to the ultimate aim
ment will follow in which CVZ considers Cost-effectiveness threshold of HTA, which is to improve the health
the product’s necessity, in terms of of the population and promote efficient
Another noteworthy issue is that neither
disease severity and medical need; cost- use of resources.
CVZ nor the Minister applies an explicit
effectiveness; and feasibility (budget
cost-effectiveness threshold in the REFERENCES
impact and possible substitution to other,
decision-making process. Instead, cost- 1. Bos M. Health technology assessment
more expensive types of care). This
effectiveness is appraised in relation to in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess
results in a recommendation to the
other factors that enter into decisions, 2000;16(2):485–519.
Minister of Health, Welfare, and Sports
such as equity, the availability of other
regarding whether the DBC should be
treatments, and budget impact. 2. Rutten FFH, Brouwer WBF. More
included in the benefits package. The
care for a limited budget: a case for a
Minister, who has final decision-making Recently, the Dutch Council for Public better use of the efficiency criteria.
authority regarding the benefits package, Health and Health Care (RVZ) put Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
generally follows this advice, but may forward the idea – which had been 2002;146(47):2254–58. [in Dutch]
also consider the DBC’s public health promoted earlier4 – of varying the cost-
relevance (for example, affordability, effectiveness threshold with the severity 3. Stolk EA, Bont Ad, Halteren ARv,
necessity of care, etc.). of a condition.5 The cost per QALY may Bijlmer RJ, Poley MJ. Role of health
be higher for very severe conditions (a technology assessment in shaping the
Given its recent introduction, we can
tentative maximum of €80,000) than for benefits package in The Netherlands.
only draw some tentative conclusions
mild conditions (a threshold of €20,000 Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &
regarding the impact of HTA. The HTA
or less). In other words, chances of Outcomes Research 2009;9(1):85–94.
principles reflect the belief that a service
funding increase when the cost- 4. Stolk EA, Donselaar Gv, Brouwer
should only be added to the benefits
effectiveness ratio becomes more WBF, Busschbach JJV. Reconciliation of
package if there is strong evidence about
favourable, and/or when conditions get economic concerns and health policy:
its safety, effectiveness, and cost-effec-
more severe. This RVZ report has illustration of an equity adjustment pro-
tiveness. However, especially in the area
attracted much public debate, but seems cedure using proportional shortfall.
of medical specialist care, evidence is
to reflect widely shared values. However, PharmacoEconomics
often incomplete and inconclusive in
the Minister has announced that he will 2004;22(17):1097–107.
practice. This may explain why there is
not treat the €80,000 threshold as an
no requirement for applicants to produce
absolute limit.6 5. Council for Public Health and Health
evidence on the DBC that meets stringent
Care. Sensible and Sustainable Care.
standards. For example, an estimate of
Conclusions Zoetermeer, Netherlands: Council for
the costs per QALY is not mandatory. If
Public Health and Health Care (RVZ),
the Minister truly adhered to the belief HTA is increasingly important in the 2006. [in Dutch]
that a service should only be reimbursed Netherlands. The necessity, effectiveness
if there is high-quality evidence, lack of and cost-effectiveness of diverse interven- 6. Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.
information would by definition lead to a tions are more systematically considered Letter from the Minister of Health,
negative reimbursement decision. A more in delineating the benefits package. Welfare, and Sports. Session 2007-2008, 31
likely scenario is that decision makers However, numerous challenges remain, 200 XVI, nr. 111. The Hague:
will either reduce their reliance on data such as the absence of a clear threshold Netherlands. Sdu Publishers, 2008. [in
generated by research (relying on experts’ value for cost-effectiveness and the rela- Dutch]
opinions instead) or postpone the final tive lack of information in areas other
decision by granting temporary than pharmaceutical care. The role of
reimbursement conditional upon
collection of additional evidence. These
courses of action have been practiced in Marten J Poley is Senior Researcher, the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment
other sectors of Dutch health care, and (iMTA), the Institute of Health Policy and Management (iBMG) and the Department of
are expected to be pursued in the future. Paediatric Surgery, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Generally, in the coming years the focus
should be on optimising transparency Elly A Stolk is Assistant Professor of Economic Evaluation and the Distribution of Health
and consistency, such as when to decide Care and Werner BF Brouwer is Professor of Health Economics, the Institute for Medical
to grant a temporary reimbursement Technology Assessment (iMTA) and the Institute of Health Policy and Management
status and ensuring that stakeholders (iBMG), Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
8
V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1 Euro Obser ver
HTA has a long history in the United has led to several methodological enabling more appraisals to be conducted
Kingdom (UK). The major shift in the advances, most notably in two areas: (i) within the available budget. However,
conduct of HTA came in 1991, with the mixed treatment comparisons,3 where some problems have arisen. First, as the
establishment of the NHS Research and advanced statistical approaches are used STA approach places the burden of proof
Development Programme. Although the to synthesize the clinical data in situa- on the manufacturer, it is unclear what
greatest expenditure was on primary tions where head-to-head trials do not should be done in situations where the
research, HTA became an increasingly exist, and (ii) probabilistic sensitivity manufacturer is unable, or unwilling, to
influential part of the programme. The analysis, where the overall uncertainty submit evidence.7 Should the recommen-
National Coordinating Centre for Health surrounding estimates of cost-effective- dation regarding the technology be nega-
Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) was ness is presented to decision makers.4 tive (as in Scotland), or should NICE try
later established in 1996 to handle the to generate the evidence itself? Secondly,
The other distinct feature of NICE’s
process of prioritising topics, commis- is there a risk that assessments are less
approach is the use of an explicit cost-
sioning studies, assessing the results from rigorous, thereby increasing the uncer-
effectiveness threshold. Following specu-
studies and disseminating the results. tainty experienced by decision makers?
lation on whether NICE had a view on
However, much of the recent discussion what the NHS should be willing to pay
on HTA in the UK has concerned the for health technologies, Rawlins and The impact of STAs
National Institute for Health and Clinical Culyer5 argued that technologies with an In a review of decisions on new cancer
Excellence (NICE).1 In some ways, the incremental cost per unit of health gain drugs, Mason and Drummond8 detected
interest in NICE is surprising. NICE is (i.e., a quality-adjusted life-year or a trend towards more negative decisions
not the only HTA entity in the UK, the QALY) of below £20,000 (about €22,000) following the introduction of STAs,
Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) were highly likely to be recommended, although there appeared to be multiple
and the All Wales Medicines Strategy whereas those with a cost in excess of reasons for this. Finally, with NICE’s
Group (AWMSG) being others, nor is it £30,000 (about €33,000) per QALY extensive involvement of stakeholders,
the first such entity in Europe. Bodies gained were unlikely to be recommended. does more haste mean less speed?
assessing the evidence on the clinical and Haycox9 points out that many of the
cost-effectiveness of health technologies A move towards STAs delays in NICE technology appraisals
(especially drugs) have existed for several occur after the first Appraisal Committee
Times are changing; following widespread
years in other European countries. meeting, as a result of stakeholder
criticism over the time taken for NICE to
comments and appeals.
undertake its assessments,6 NICE is now
The NICE approach conducting increasingly more single tech- The other distinctive feature of NICE’s
The extensive discussions of NICE prob- nology appraisals (STAs). These MTAs was that these often contained a
ably relate to the fact that it developed appraisals consider only a single tech- review of a wide range of competing
detailed and transparent procedures for nology in a single indication and involve a treatments for the condition concerned.
the scoping of its technology appraisals review of evidence submitted by the tech- Unlike drug (or technology) licensing,
and incorporated extensive stakeholder nology’s manufacturer, rather than a de decisions on reimbursement and coverage
involvement. In addition, its assessments novo analysis. In addition, the provisional of health technologies are essentially com-
have typically been very rigorous, guidance is only sent to stakeholders for parative. Therefore, in undertaking a
incorporating both a systematic review of comment if it restricts the use of the tech- series of decisions on individual technolo-
the clinical literature and an economic nology within its licensed indications. gies, the broader value for money per-
model.2 Also, these assessments are NICE’s STA approach mirrors those spective may be lost. This has been
published in full by the NCCHTA. operating in most of the European coun- recognized by the Dental and
tries, including the SMC. Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) in
NICE’s distinctive approach to con-
Sweden, where in addition to assessments
ducting technology appraisals, now called Apart from being quicker, the STA
on new drugs, is also undertaking a series
Multiple Technology Appraisals (MTAs), approach is less resource-intensive, thus
9
Euro Obser ver V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1
of reviews on existing products, covering contrast the different approaches within analysis and computationally expensive
49 therapeutic groups. In order to achieve Europe and elsewhere. models: necessary and required? Value in
overall value for money, it is likely that Health 2006;9(4):244–52.
REFERENCES
NICE will also need to undertake similar 5. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National
reviews, either through its technology 1. Sorenson C, Drummond MF, Kanavos
Institute of Clinical Excellence and its
appraisal or clinical guideline programme. P. Ensuring Value for Money in Health
value judgments. BMJ 2004;329:224 –7.
Care: the role of HTA in the European
HTA is continually evolving Union. Observatory Studies Series Report 6. House of Commons Health Committee.
No. 11. Copenhagen: European National Institute for Health and Clinical
The other recent change is that NICE has Observatory on Health Systems and Excellence. London: The Stationery
issued supplementary guidance on the Policies, 2008. Available at: Office, 2008.
technology appraisal of ‘end of life’ http://www.euro.who.int/observatory/ 7. Drummond MF, Mason AR. Rationing
therapies. If the therapy is for a small Publications/20080407_1 new medicines in the UK. BMJ
patient group with a life expectancy of
2. Sorenson C et al. National Institute for 2009;338(editorial):3182.
less than 24 months, therapies that add
more than three months to life can be Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): 8. Mason AR, Drummond MF. Public
appraised differently. That is, the How does it work and what are the impli- funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE
Appraisal Committee can decide that the cations for the U.S.? Report for the getting nastier? Eur J Cancer 2009;
value of the QALYs gained could be such National Pharmaceutical Council. Reston, doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.040
that this would put the therapy below the VA: National Pharmaceutical Council,
9. Haycox A. Does NICE blight exist, and
willingness-to-pay threshold. 2008. Available at: http://d.scribd.com/
if so, why? Pharmacoeconomics 2008;
docs/1su31s3f8fhxhqmcbugk.pdf
Thus, recent experience from the UK 26(12):987–9.
3. Ades AE et al. Bayesian methods for
illustrates that HTA methods and
evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness
processes are continually evolving.
analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24(1):1– Michael Drummond is Professor of
Different jurisdictions can learn from
19. Health Economics, Centre for Health
each others’ experiences and it is impor-
Economics, University of York, UK.
tant that we continue to compare and 4. Griffin S et al. Probabilistic sensitivity
10
V o l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 1 Euro Obser ver
coordinate independent reviews by economic evaluations to support applica- qualified personnel and funds to conduct
external organizations. Similar to other tions for public reimbursement.1–3 They assessments. This is compounded by the
Member States, several countries, such as have been developed by these countries lack of educational and training opportu-
Latvia, Hungary, and Estonia, also have to ensure the provision of standardized, nities in HTA in the region, especially in
national HTA agencies that conduct reliable, transparent and robust evidence the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania,
assessments and issues reports, but are to HTA and decision-making bodies. and Bulgaria. To address this issue,
not directly involved in national decision Poland engaged in a ‘Twinning Project’
In particular, all countries require and
making. However, in Hungary, advisory with France between 2006 and 2008,
consider evidence on effectiveness, typi-
and national HTA entities often collabo- where experts from France and other EU
cally from randomized controlled trials
rate in reviewing health technologies. countries came together to review the
(RCTs) and/or economic modelling.
To date, HTA programmes in CEE pre- While most countries recommend that HTA situation in Poland and hold
dominately focus on assessing the value health economic information (specifically, workshops, trainings, study visits, and
of pharmaceuticals and less so of medical cost-effectiveness) be submitted for internships on economic evaluation,
devices and other health technologies. assessment, only Poland, Hungary, reimbursement processes, and the role of
This is especially true with regards to Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, and Estonia stakeholders. This provides a good
evaluating technologies for inclusion in explicitly require such evidence. Some example of how international collabora-
the benefit basket. countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia) tion can help support the implementation
only require economic evaluation for of HTA in lower-resourced countries.
In most CEE countries there has been However, it is important that sufficient
notable stakeholder support for the high-cost drugs. Health system impact
analyses are often required to assess a investment in HTA capacity-building
implementation of HTA, especially from also be made by individual CEE
governments and patients or consumers. technology’s budget impact, its influence
on health service organization, and any governments.
Despite such interest, there has been
limited formal involvement of stake- social and ethical issues. Another related challenge is setting
holders in HTA processes. This may be a Decision makers base adoption and assessment priorities. While HTA is
particular challenge for CEE countries, funding decisions on a variety of criteria, mainly applied to drugs, there is signifi-
given that stakeholder engagement is but therapeutic benefit, cost-effective- cant opportunity to apply it to all health
resource intensive, as highlighted in the ness, disease severity, availability of other technologies. Countries with greater
Overview article. However, some coun- treatments, and budget impact are the capacity and resource constraints should
tries have been progressive in this area, most important. Similar to other consider the total available budget,
involving various stakeholder groups in European countries with HTA systems, existing human capital (trained HTA
assessment committees, councils, and the deciding on an appropriate (if any) cost- evaluators), accessibility of data, appro-
like. For example, the Consultative effectiveness threshold is an issue for priate methods, and the capacity of the
Council of the AHTAPol entails a variety countries in the region. At present, no health systems to use the results.6 These
of external experts from governmental country employs an explicit decision factors can and should influence the
bodies, academic medical centres, univer- threshold. Some argue that an accepted number and range of assessments that can
sities, and health associations. The threshold should be at or below the be conducted. Regardless of the approach
Council helps identify and prioritize annual GDP per capita at purchasing used, topic selection should be as trans-
reviews, assists in the review process, and power parity (PPP),4 while others recom- parent as possible to ensure it is open,
provides comments on final decisions or mend three times the GDP per capita.5 In systematic, and unbiased, especially if not
reports. Several HTA bodies in the region the case of Hungary, for example, the all technologies are reviewed. Countries
also collaborate with international application of the former argument should also aim to apply HTA to identify
networks, such as the International would result in a threshold value of areas of disinvestment, where possible.
Network for Agencies for Health around €14,000/QALY. Other views and
Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and CEE countries also face methodological
decision-making approaches suggest that
the European Network for Health issues, with the availability of data being a
no single threshold value should apply to
Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). central problem. Firstly, there has been a
all interventions or patient populations,
lack of systematic data collection on
and that a broader range of evidence
Adopting new methods to health status, outcomes, and costs in the
should be considered.
region, leading to a paucity of national
decision making data and a greater reliance on studies from
Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic States
Remaining challenges abroad. While clinical and epidemiolog-
developed and implemented national Several challenges faced by CEE coun- ical evidence is usually considered trans-
HTA and/or pharmacoeconomic guide- tries relate to capacity and available ferable, economic data is more context-
lines in the early 2000s, which provide resources for HTA activities. As many of specific. As such, economic studies cannot
direction to manufacturers, sponsors, and the HTA agencies are early in their estab- easily be imported from other countries,
health care providers preparing health lishment, they are faced with a lack of posing a significant challenge for
11
THE EUROPEAN OBSERVATORY ON HEALTH SYSTEMS AND POLICIES IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN
World Health Government Government Government Government Government Government Veneto European World Bank London School London School
Organization of Belgium of Finland of Norway of Slovenia of Spain of Sweden Region of Investment of Economics of Hygiene &
Regional Office Italy Bank and Political Tropical
for Europe Science Medicine
The Observatory Venice Summer School For information and ordering details
on any of the Observatory publications
Innovation and Health Technology Assessment: San Servolo, Venice mentioned in this issue, please contact:
Improving Health System Quality 26–31 July 2009 The European Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies
The Summer School will look at the role of Innovation and Health The Summer School is accredited WHO ECHP
Technology Assessment as a means to improve the quality of by the European Accreditation Rue de l’Autonomie, 4
health systems and the outcomes of health care. The course will Council for Continuing Medical B - 1070 Brussels, Belgium
develop a better understanding of the challenges in stimulating Education and participation Tel: +32 2 525 09 33
and assessing innovation in health-care provision and will explore counts towards ongoing Fax: +32 2 525 0936
ways of organizing effective evaluations, designing related professional development in Email: info@obs.euro.who.int
decision-making processes and setting up relevant institutions. all EU Member States. Website: www.euro.who.int/observatory
For more information and regular updates on the programme Please apply before 29 May Design and production by
and lecturers: www.observatorysummerschool.org Westminster European
westminster.european@btinternet.com
ISSN: 1020-7481
12