Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T16:04:16.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPMENTS IN VALUE FRAMEWORKS TO INFORM THE ALLOCATION OF HEALTHCARE RESOURCES

Part of: Special Collection - Policy Forums

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2017

Wija Oortwijn ,
Laura Sampietro-Colom  and
Fay Habens
Wija Oortwijn
Affiliation:
HTAi Global Policy Forum Scientific Secretary, Ecorys Nederland B.V.wija.oortwijn@ecorys.com
Laura Sampietro-Colom
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum, Health Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Clinic Barcelona
Fay Habens
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum Wessex Institute, University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Value frameworkHealth technology assessmentDecision making
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , 2017 , pp. 323 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Carnegie Mellon University. Disruptive Health Technology Institute. What is disruptive health technology? http://www.dhti.cmu.edu/dhti/definition.asp (accessed April 10, 2017).Google Scholar
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. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf?ua=1 (accessed April 10, 2017).Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Health Technology Assessment international. Global Policy Forum. http://www.htai.org/policy-forum/global-policy-forum.html (accessed March 21, 2017).Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Husereau, D, on behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum. 2016 policy forum background paper. Changing HTA paradigms, January 8, 2016. http://www.htai.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1493651265&hash=637246437f0d1dfe7f5926a48b2ba8fe65a83dfc&file=fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Policy_Forum_Public/PF_Background_Paper_2016_FINAL.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
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. http://www.htai.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1488956656&hash=7fdcbfd842e98dee4a18394d969eb9658eef3768&file=fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Policy_Forum/HTAi_Policy_Forum_2017_Background_Paper.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
8. Chatham House. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Chatham House Rule. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
9. Westrich, K. Current landscape: Value assessment frameworks. Washington, DC: National Pharmaceutical Council; June 2016.Google Scholar
10. EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model. http://www.eunethta.eu/hta-core-model (accessed March 14, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. http://www.medtechta.eu/wps/wcm/connect/272245ac-ebee-4709-a7b1-35a8a6c9c8bd/ExecutiveSummary_+MedtecHTA+WP4_D4.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
12. HTA network. EU Health Technology Assessment Network. Strategy for EU cooperation on Health Technology Assessment. Rome, October 29, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/2014_strategy_eucooperation_hta_en.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
13. OECD. New health technologies: Managing access, value and sustainability. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017 Google Scholar
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. https://www.ohe.org/news/value-knowing-and-knowing-value-improving-health-technology-assessment-complementary (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Tarricone, R, Torbica, A, Drummond, M. Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: The MedtecHTA project. Health Econ. 2017 (Suppl 1):5-12.Google Scholar
17. Wahlster, P, Brereton, L, Burns, J, et al. Guidance on the integrated assessment of complex health technologies – The INTEGRATE-HTA Model [Online]. http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/ (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
18. Bach, PB. New math on drug cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1797-1799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Overview of the ICER value framework and proposals for an update for 2017-2018, 1 February, 2017. http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ICER-VAF-Update-Proposals-020117.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
21. Evans, M. No 9. Ethics. Reconciling conflicting values in health policy. In: Dargie, C, (Ed.). Policy futures for UK health, Technical Series, 1999.Google Scholar
22. Segone, M, ed. Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results. Geneva: UNICEF; 2009. http://www.ceecis.org/remf/Country-ledMEsystems.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)587321 (accessed March 14, 2017).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Oortwijn supplementary material

Table S1

Download Oortwijn supplementary material(File)
File 17.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Oortwijn supplementary material

Table S2

Download Oortwijn supplementary material(File)
File 16.3 KB