Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:09:55.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN POLAND AND SCOTLAND: COMPARISON OF PROCESS AND DECISIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

Katarzyna Kolasa  and
Radek Wasiak
Katarzyna Kolasa
Affiliation:
Warsaw Medical Universitykkolasa@wum.edu.pl
Radek Wasiak
Affiliation:
United BioSource Corporation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We compared Polish and Scottish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process in order to elicit recommendations for future development of HTA methodological guidelines in Poland.

Methods: We studied the differences between Polish and Scottish HTA methodological guidelines. HTA recommendations issued by Polish HTA agency (AHTAPol) in the period January 1 through December 31, 2008, were benchmarked to HTA guidance published by Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC) for the same drug technology.

Results: The Scottish HTA methodological guidelines were more instructive in terms of clinical and economic evaluations than Polish guidelines. SMC evaluated forty-eight of sixty-eight drug technologies appraised by AHTAPoL. There were thirty drug technologies that received similar guidance in both countries and eighteen with contradictory HTA recommendations. In Scotland, there were more positive HTA recommendations than there were in Poland. While comments about efficacy or safety were commonplace among reasons for negative recommendations in Poland, insufficient justification of treatment's cost in relation to benefits was the most often cited reason for rejection in Scotland. SMC tended to recommend restricted use to specific sub-populations for several drug technologies negatively appraised by AHTAPoL.

Conclusions: The comparison between SMC and AHTAPoL suggests that there is potential room of improvement of the Polish HTA methodological guidelines. Comparative effectiveness and safety, subgroup analysis, and adaptation of models to local settings were identified as key areas for further development of Polish HTA methodological guidelines.

Keywords

AHTAPoLSMCHealth technology assessment
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 70 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.AHTAPoL. Homepage. www.aotm.gov.plGoogle Scholar
2.AHTAPoL. HTA recommendation nr 13/04/2009 nelarabina. February 16, 2009 www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed April 12, 2010).Google Scholar
3.AHTAPoL. HTA recommendation nr 7/02/2009 Xolair, February 2, 2009 _ www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed April 12, 2010).Google Scholar
4.AHTAPoL. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: A review and consolidation of quality assessment. www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed September 10, 2008).Google Scholar
5.Banta, H. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Barbieri, M, Drummond, M, Willke, R, et al. Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: Lessons for inferring generalizability. Value Health. 2005;8:10–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Briggs, A. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cairns, J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy. 2006;76:134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Drummond, M. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:409–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Hill, SR, Mitchell, AS, Henry, DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2000;28:2116–2121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hutton, J. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Karia, R, Gani, R, Perard, R, Cann, K.A comparison of three technology appraisals systems; NICE, SMC and CADTH. Abstract from ISPOR 13 Annual Meeting, May 3-7, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Manca, A, Willan, A.“Lost in translation”: Accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1101-1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Office of Fair Trading. Annexe B: Review of NICE, SMC, and AWMSG. Febuary 2007 [online]. www.oft.gov.uk (accessed April 15, 2009).Google Scholar
15.Raftery, J. Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ. 2006;332:1266–1268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Scottish Medicines Consortium. HTA recommendation regarding darifenacin 7.5 mg, 15 mg prolonged-release tablets No. (377/07) May 4, 2007. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium.Google Scholar
17.Scottish Medicines Consortium. HTA recommendation regarding pegaptanib 0.3mg, solution for intravitreal injection (Macugen) No. (290/06) July 7, 2006. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium.Google Scholar
18.Scottish Medicines Consortium. Homepage. www.scottishmedicines.org.ukGoogle Scholar
19.Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF) (Revised June 2007). www.scottishmedicines.org.uk (accessed December 12, 2009).Google Scholar
20.Sculpher, M, Drummond, M. Analysis sans frontières: Can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1087–1099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Taylor, R, Hutton, J., Culyer, A.Developing the revised NICE appraisal technical guidance to manufacturers and sponsors opportunity or threat? Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:1031–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Watts, G. Are the Scots getting a better deal on prescribed drugs than the English? BMJ. 2006;333:875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Kolasa and Wasiak supplementary material

Tables 1 and 2

Download Kolasa and Wasiak supplementary material(File)
File 55.8 KB