Search

Objectives: To clarify the concept of disruptive technologies in health care, provide examples and consider implications of potentially disruptive technologies for health technology assessment (HTA). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of conceptual and empirical papers on healthcare technologies that are described as " disruptive. " We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 2013 to April 2019 (updated in December 2021). Data extraction was done in duplicate by pairs of reviewers utilizing a data extraction form. A qualitative data analysis was undertaken based on an analytic framework for analysis of the concept and examples. Key arguments and a number of potential predictors of disruptive technologies were derived and implications for HTA organizations were discussed. Results: Of 4,107 records, 28 were included in the review. Most of the papers included conceptual discussions and business models for disruptive technologies; only few papers presented empirical evidence. The majority of the evidence is related to the US healthcare system. Key arguments for describing a technology as disruptive include improvement of outcomes for patients, improved access to health care, reduction of costs and better affordability, shift in responsibilities between providers, and change in the organization of health care. A number of possible predictors for disruption were identified to distinguish these from " sustaining " innovations. Conclusions: Since truly disruptive technologies could radically change technology uptake and may modify provision of care patterns or treatment paths, they require a thorough evaluation of the consequences of using these technologies, including economic and organizational impact assessment and careful monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the reimbursement policy for immune checkpoint inhibitors in Taiwan and provides a perspective to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decision making. Global trends for cancer treatment have shifted from chemotherapies to targeted therapies and immuno-oncology (IO) medicine, leading to significant increases in treatment costs. To enhance the accessibility of advanced therapy, the Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration announced two pathways for high-cost medicine: the managed entry agreement and a set of general rules of reimbursement submission for high-cost drugs. To further manage the financial burden on Taiwan's national health insurance system, the policy makers introduced novel inhibitory drugs for cancer immune checkpoints, subject to a maximum annual budget of NT$800 million (≈US$26.7 million). In April 2019, a national registry was established for patients undergoing cancer immunotherapy. Clinical characteristics, treatment duration, toxicity, and the outcome of the postcheckpoint inhibitor treatments were recorded. By analyzing real-world data, we assess the therapeutic effect of IO treatment in Taiwanese patients, thereby enabling payers to adjust payment regulations and rules for reimbursement. The Health Technology Assessment Team plays an important role in drawing upon the evidence to support policy making. Under an implemented cost-management mechanism, Taiwan's high-cost drug policy has enabled patients to access new medicines and maximized patient benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) spans the globe as a network of 50 publicly-funded health technology assessment (HTA) agencies supporting health system decision making for 1.4 billion people in thirty countries. Agency members are non-profit HTA organizations that are part of, or directly support, regional or national governments. Recently, INAHTA surveyed its members to gather perspectives from agency leadership on the most important issues in HTA today. This paper describes the top 10 challenges identified by INAHTA members. Addressing these challenges requires a call for action from INAHTA member agencies and the many other actors involved in the HTA ecosystem. In opening this call for action, INAHTA will lead the way; however, a comprehensive undertaking from all players is needed to effectively address these challenges and to continue to evolve HTA in its role as a strong and effective contributor to health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovative health technologies offer much to patients, clinicians, and health systems. Policy makers can, however, be slow to embrace innovation for many reasons, including a less robust body of evidence, perceived high costs, and a fear that once technologies enter the health system, they will be difficult to remove. Health technology funding decisions are usually made after a rigorous health technology assessment (HTA) process, including a cost analysis. However, by focusing on therapeutic value and cost-savings, the traditional HTA framework often fails to capture innovation in the assessment process. How HTA defines, evaluates, and values innovation is currently inconsistent, and it is generally agreed that by explicitly defining innovation would recognize and reward and, in turn, stimulate, encourage, and incentivize future innovation in the system. To foster innovation in health technology, policy needs to be innovative and utilize other HTA tools to inform decision making including horizon scanning, multicriteria decision analysis, and funding mechanisms such as managed agreements and coverage with evidence development. When properly supported and incentivized, and by shifting the focus from cost to investment, innovation in health technology such as genomics, point-of-care testing, and digital health may deliver better patient outcomes. Industry and agency members of the Health Technology Assessment International Asia Policy Forum (APF) met in Taiwan in November 2023 to discuss the potential of HTA to foster innovation, especially in the Asia region. Discussions and presentations during the 2023 APF were informed by a background paper, which forms the basis of this paper.