4.4 Article

Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 108, 期 2-3, 页码 167-177

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.012

关键词

Health technology assessment; Pricing and reimbursement; Pharmaceuticals; Access to healthcare; Risk sharing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify diverging HTA recommendations across five countries, understand the rationale for decision-making in specific therapeutic categories, and suggest ways forward to minimize these inter-country differences. Methods: A comparative analysis of HTA recommendations for 287 drug-indication pairs appraised by five countries (England, Scotland, Sweden, Canada, and Australia) between 2007 and 2009, including an in-depth analysis of two case studies. Agreement levels were measured using kappa scores. Associations were explored through correspondence analysis. Results: Significant inter-country variability in the HTA recommendations exists: 46% of the drug-indication pairs studied received diverging recommendations across countries. The level of agreement between agencies was poor to moderate. Associations between HTA recommendations issued by each HTA body per therapy area (cancer, orphan, CNS) differed from the general pattern observed across the complete sample. Expectations from HTA bodies in terms of relative effectiveness differ depending on the drug and disease's characteristics, although agency-specific guidelines are homogeneous for all treatments. Policy implications: Distinguishing and accounting for the specifics underpinning individual conditions and their characteristics in HTA processes may constitute a way forward to improved HTA methods, while increasing transparency in the expectations that HTA bodies have in terms of relative effectiveness of the drug depending on these characteristics. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据