Search

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.

Objectives: Rare diseases (RD)-related policies have received significant attention due to the pressing medical requirements associated with these medical conditions and the substantial impact and treatments they may have on healthcare budgets. Nevertheless, policymakers frequently encounter difficulties in managing issues concerning resource allocation and prioritization within this population. Realizing the need to address such problems, this study was conducted to develop a framework based on the multicriteria decision analysis to improve RD reimbursement prioritization in Malaysia., Methods: Primarily, a scoping review was performed to identify the methods and criteria used for the reimbursement of RD treatment, followed by strategic stakeholder engagement and a deliberative process on determining the best approach for the framework, including criteria identification, elicitation of weights, and a pilot assessment using the framework., Results: The findings reflected the priorities and perspectives of the stakeholders, which identified eight key criteria and their associated weights, namely effectiveness (19.6 percent), disease severity (15.6 percent), safety (14.2 percent), access to treatment (12.6 percent), economic consideration (12.2 percent), type of therapeutic treatment (11.5 percent), availability of alternatives (8.3 percent), and population group (6 percent)., Conclusions: In summary, the developed framework was well-accepted by the Rare Disease Committee, which will be applied as part of the committee deliberation for transparent and equitable decision making on fund allocation and reimbursement of orphan and RD treatment in Malaysia.

The use of participatory design (PD) provides a framework for involving users in the process of developing healthcare technologies. Within PD, theoretical and methodological decisions need to be made. However, these decisions are often not adequately described or justified. This can lead to limited interpretability of the results. This paper has three objectives: First, to provide an overview of the key theoretical and methodological decisions that must be made in PD from the perspective of health services research; second, to describe the associated challenges and third, to describe action requirements for the future development of PD in health services research., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study investigated how patient representatives have experienced their involvement in medicines appraisal and reimbursement processes with the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland (COHERE) and the Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board (PPB) and how authorities perceive the role of patient organizations' input., Methods: Semi-structured thematic individual and pair interviews were conducted in 2021 with representatives (n = 14) of patient organizations and government officials (n = 7) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis., Results: Patient representatives expressed their appreciation for the PPB and the COHERE in creating consultation processes and systematic models that support involvement. However, there were many challenges: patient representatives were uncertain about how their submissions were utilized in official processes and whether their opinions had any significance in decision-making. Patients or patient organizations lack representation in appraisal and decision-making bodies, and patient representatives felt that decision-making lacked transparency. The importance of patient involvement was highlighted by the authorities, but they also emphasized that the patient organizations' contributions were complementary to the other materials. Submissions regarding the medications used to treat rare diseases and those with limited research evidence were considered particularly valuable. However, the submissions may not necessarily have a direct impact on decisions., Conclusions: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of involvement processes at the PPB and COHERE. The interviews confirmed the need for increased transparency in the medicines assessment, appraisal, and decision-making procedures in Finland.

Objectives: In France, decisions for pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products are based on appraisals performed by the National authority for health ( Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)). During the appraisal process, additional real-world evidence can be requested as "Post-Registration Studies" (PRS) when there are uncertainties in evidence that could be resolved by additional data collection. To facilitate PRS planning, a retrospective exploratory analysis was conducted to identify the characteristics of medicinal products associated with a PRS request., Methods: This analysis encompassed all appraisals finalized between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021 and compared products for which the appraisal led to a PRS request with those that did not., Results: Six hundred positive opinions for reimbursement were identified, with a PRS request present in 17 percent (n = 103) of cases. The independent characteristics associated with a PRS request were a mild or moderate clinical benefit score, a major to moderate or minor clinical added value score, previous availability under an early access program, and certain therapeutic areas (neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology). These findings suggest two different profiles of PRS requests: (i) products for which there is uncertainty in the size of the clinical benefit and (ii) innovative products for which a substantial benefit is expected but uncertainties persist., Conclusions: These results will assist health technology developers to better anticipate data generation to promptly address uncertainties identified by HAS. It may also help HAS and other assessment agencies to work together to improve postlaunch evidence generation according to the characteristics of the medicinal products.

In 2019, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) in Korea established a health technology reassessment (HTR) system to manage the life cycle of health technologies and develop operational measures promoting the efficient use of healthcare resources. The purpose of this study is to introduce the detailed implementation process and practical functional methods of the HTR implemented by NECA.The HTR is a structured multidisciplinary method for analyzing health technologies currently used in the healthcare system based on the latest information on parameters, such as clinical safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of optimizing the use of healthcare resources as well as social and ethical issues. All decision-making stages of the HTR are carefully reviewed and transparently managed. The HTR committee makes significant decisions, and the subcommittee decides the details related to the assessment process.Since the pilot began in 2018, 262 cases have been reassessed, of which, 126 cases (48.1 percent) were health services not covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI). Over the past 5 years, approximately 130 recommendations for the in-use technologies were determined by the HTR committee. In the near future, it will be necessary to officially develop and establish a Korean HTR system and a legal foundation to optimize the NHI system.

The growing global focus on and sense of urgency toward improving healthcare environmental sustainability and moving to low-carbon and resilient healthcare systems is increasingly mirrored in discussions of the role of health technology assessment (HTA). This Perspective considers how HTA can most effectively contribute to these goals and where other policy tools may be more effective in driving sustainability, especially given the highly limited pool of resources available to conduct environmental assessments within HTA. It suggests that HTA might most productively focus on assessing those technologies that have intrinsic characteristics which may cause specific environmental harms or vulnerabilities, while the generic environmental impacts of most other products may be better addressed through other policy and regulatory mechanisms.

Objectives: Systematic priority setting is necessary for achieving high-quality healthcare using limited resources in low- and middle-income countries. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool that can be used for systematic priority setting. The objective of this study was to conduct a stakeholder and situational analysis of HTA in Zimbabwe., Methods: We identified and analyzed stakeholders using the International Decision Support Initiative checklist. The identified stakeholders were invited to an HTA workshop convened at the University of Zimbabwe. We used an existing HTA situational analysis questionnaire to ask for participants' views on the need, demand, and supply of HTA. A follow-up survey was done among representatives of stakeholder organizations that failed to attend the workshop. We reviewed two health policy documents relevant to the HTA. Qualitative data from the survey and document review were analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: Forty-eight organizations were identified as stakeholders for HTA in Zimbabwe. A total of 41 respondents from these stakeholder organizations participated in the survey. Respondents highlighted that the HTA was needed for transparent decision making. The demand for HTA-related evidence was high except for the health economic and ethics dimensions, perhaps reflecting a lack of awareness. Ministry of Health was listed as a major supplier of HTA data., Conclusions: There is no formal HTA agency in the Zimbabwe healthcare system. Various institutions make decisions on prioritization, procurement, and coverage of health services. The activities undertaken by these organizations provide context for the institutionalization of HTA in Zimbabwe.

Objectives: Our objective was to explore procedures and methods used at health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for assessing medical devices and the underlying views of HTA practitioners about appropriate methodology to identify challenges in adopting new methodologies for assessing devices. We focused on the role of normative commitments of HTA practitioners in the adoption of new methods., Methods: An online survey, including questions on procedures, scoping, and assessments of medical devices, was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Interviews were conducted with survey respondents and HTA practitioners involved in assessments of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to gain an in-depth understanding of choices made and views about assessing medical devices. Survey and interview questions were inspired by the "values in doing assessments of health technologies" approach towards HTA, which states that HTA addresses value-laden questions and information., Results: The current practice of assessing medical devices at HTA agencies is predominantly based on procedures, methods, and epistemological principles developed for assessments of drugs. Both practical factors (available time, demands of decision-makers, existing legal frameworks, and HTA guidelines), as well as commitments of HTA practitioners to principles of evidence-based medicine, make the adoption of a new methodology difficult., Conclusions: There is a broad recognition that assessments of medical devices may need changes in HTA methodology. In order to realize this, the HTA community may require both a discussion on the role, responsibility, and goals of HTA, and resulting changes in institutional context to adopt new methodologies.

Objectives: The rising costs of drugs have necessitated the exploration of innovative payment methods in healthcare systems. Risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) have been implemented in many countries as a value-based payment mechanism to manage the uncertainty associated with expensive technologies. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on value-based payment in the Singaporean context, providing insights for future directions in health technology assessment and financing., Methods: This descriptive qualitative inquiry involved participant interviews conducted between October 2021 and April 2022. Thematic analysis was conducted in two phases to analyze the interview transcripts., Results: Seventeen respondents participated in the study, and five key themes emerged from the analysis. Stakeholders viewed RSAs as moderately positive, despite limited experience with them. They emphasized the importance of clearly defining objectives and establishing transparent criteria for implementing these schemes. The current data infrastructure was identified as both a barrier and facilitator, as RSAs impose administrative burdens. To successfully implement these payment mechanisms, capacity building, and effective stakeholder engagement that fosters mutual trust and cocreation are crucial., Conclusion: This study confirms previously identified barriers and facilitators to successful RSA implementation while contextualizing them within the Singaporean setting. The findings suggest that value-based payment has the potential to address uncertainty and improve access to healthcare technologies, but these barriers must be addressed for the schemes to be effective.

Background: Traditional therapies are crucial in maintaining and improving human well-being. China's healthcare policymakers are attempting to use health technology assessment (HTA) as a decision-making supportive tool. The value assessment framework for Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been developed and is being adopted and validated widely by research institutions. Subsequently, the healthcare decision-makers particularly hanker for the value framework of traditional non-pharmacological therapies., Methods: To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies' websites., Results: The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence., Conclusions: This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.

Objectives: This study aims to develop a framework for establishing priorities in the regional health service of Murcia, Spain, to facilitate the creation of a comprehensive multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework. This framework will aid in decision-making processes related to the assessment, reimbursement, and utilization of high-impact health technologies., Method: Based on the results of a review of existing frameworks for MCDA of health technologies, a set of criteria was proposed to be used in the context of evaluating high-impact health technologies. Key stakeholders within regional healthcare services, including clinical leaders and management personnel, participated in a focus group (n = 11) to discuss the proposed criteria and select the final fifteen. To elicit the weights of the criteria, two surveys were administered, one to a small sample of healthcare professionals (n = 35) and another to a larger representative sample of the general population (n = 494)., Results: The responses obtained from health professionals in the weighting procedure exhibited greater consistency compared to those provided by the general public. The criteria more highly weighted were "Need for intervention" and "Intervention outcomes." The weights finally assigned to each item in the multicriteria framework were derived as the equal-weighted sum of the mean weights from the two samples., Conclusions: A multi-attribute function capable of generating a composite measure (multicriteria) to assess the value of high-impact health interventions has been developed. Furthermore, it is recommended to pilot this procedure in a specific decision context to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, usefulness, and reliability of the proposed tool.

Objectives: This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies., Results: A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon >1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items., Conclusions: HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, model-based long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR - The professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Since 2015, Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN) has linked disease severity ranges of 0.10 to 0.40, 0.41 to 0.70, and 0.71 to 1.00 with willingness-to-pay (WTP) reference values of €20 000, €50 000, and €80 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. We sought to review whether these changes have affected ZIN health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes for specialist and outpatient drugs., Methods: ZIN recommendations for specialist and outpatient drugs published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2020, that included a pharmacoeconomic report were reviewed. Data were extracted on disease severity, proportional shortfall calculation, reported WTP reference value, outcomes related to the cost-effectiveness of the product, budget impact, and ZIN's recommendation including rationale for their advice., Results: A total of 51 HTAs were included. Of the 20 HTAs published before June 2015, a total of 9 received positive recommendations, 7 were conditionally reimbursed, and 4 received negative recommendations. None reported WTP reference values. Of the 31 evaluations published after June 2015, a total of 4 products received positive recommendations, 1 was conditionally approved, and 26 received negative recommendations initially. Most products (65%) reported disease severity to be >0.70., Conclusions: Since 2015, most products have fallen within the highest category of disease severity. Although pre-2015 outcomes were varied, post-2015 products overwhelmingly received negative recommendations, and the proportion of products for which price negotiations were recommended has increased. These differences in outcomes may result from the introduction of an explicit WTP reference value, whether or not in combination with the severity-adjusted ranges, but may also reflect other national policy changes in 2015., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Emergency preparedness is a continuous quality improvement process through which roles and responsibilities are defined to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impact of emergencies. This process results in documented plans that provide a backbone structure for developing the core capacities to address health threats. Nevertheless, several barriers can impair an effective preparedness planning, as it needs a 360° perspective to address each component according to the best evidence and practice. Preparedness planning shares common principles with health technology assessment (HTA) as both encompass a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder approach, follow an iterative cycle, adopt a 360° perspective on the impact of intervention measures, and conclude with decision-making support. Our "Perspective" illustrates how each HTA domain can address different component(s) of a preparedness plan that can indeed be seen as a container of multiple HTAs, which can then be used to populate the entire plan itself. This approach can allow one to overcome preparedness barriers, providing an independent, systematic, and robust tool to address the components and ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of their value in the mitigation of the impact of emergencies.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4].Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.

Objectives: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs)., Study Design and Setting: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach., Results: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose-response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either "off-the-shelf" or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines., Conclusion: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care-related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics)., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: The Ministry of Health in Québec requested the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services to produce clinical and implementation recommendations for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease., Objectives: (i) Describe the process of trialing different modalities of patient engagement as a means to integrate a diversity of patient perspectives and (ii) Describe the learning process of INESSS regarding the integration of the patient perspective., Methodology: All documents were analyzed, and a survey with all advisory committee members and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and imported into QDA miner software for the purposes of analysis. Data analysis was carried out concurrently with data collection to allow for an iterative approach between data collection and analysis., Results: Five methods to integrate the perspectives of patients were used: (i) interviews with patients, (ii) inclusion of patient partners within the advisory committee, (iii) literature review, (iv) focus groups with one patient association, and (v) feedback from patient associations on recommendations intended for decision makers and other targeted stakeholders. The patient partners influenced decisions by sharing their experiential knowledge. The patient interviews and the literature review added an in-depth perspective on the disease and experience with the healthcare system. The patient association members shared their perspectives and helped disseminate the recommendation to sustain a practice change., Conclusion: The combination of methods to collect and integrate patients' knowledge and patient associations' perspectives helped develop a comprehensive understanding of a controversial object of evaluation.

Patient and public involvement in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is gaining increased interest among research and policy communities. Patients' organizations represent an important link between individual patients and the health system. Social theories are increasingly being used to explain doctor-patient-system interactions, expanding understanding beyond the mere clinical perspective. In this sense, patient involvement in HTA can also be considered through the Habermas's theory of communicative action. From a Habermasian perspective, HTA as part of the instrumental rationality contributes to an increased efficiency of resource use within the system; however, such rationalization threatens to colonize the lifeworld by making it "increasingly state administered with attenuated possibilities for communicative action as a result of the commercialization and rationalization in terms of immediate returns." Using Habermasian system/lifeworld framework, this paper explores opportunities and obstacles to patient involvement in HTA, whereby trying to understand current and possible roles of patients' organizations as a mediating force between HTA as a function of the system and the lifeworld represented by patients.

Background: Depending on the health system context and the demands of relevant stakeholders in countries, the need, organizational structure, and prerequisites for enabling capacity building and development in health technology assessment (HTA) will vary. Core competencies are instrumental in this and include essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs). They provide building blocks for delivering high-quality and effective practices of HTA. We aimed to systematically explore and develop an overview of the core competencies necessary for HTA., Methods: This study was conducted during 2016-19 using different methods in a structured manner. We drew concepts of KSAs from various literature sources, surveyed universities and HTA professionals, and conducted expert workshops to arrive at a common understanding of the required competencies., Results: The terminology for KSAs defining competencies in HTA programs has been clarified. In addition, a list of competencies offered through different educational and training programs has been created. The surveys provided clarity on a common understanding of KSAs among HTA stakeholders. Thereafter, a set of competencies was described and classified according to the HTA domains., Conclusions: Our study shows that there is diversity in HTA programs offered by educational institutions. The content of the programs varies due to differences between countries regarding the level of HTA development and the need for HTA, including the understanding of what HTA is. The preparation of a competency checklist or a "menu" of options mirroring the diversity of HTA will ensure that the specific needs of the HTA community will be covered.

Introduction: This paper aims to describe the development of a flowchart to guide the decisions of researchers in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) regarding patient involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By doing so, it reflects on current methodological challenges in PI in the HTA field: how best to combine PI methods and what is the role of patient-based evidence., Methods: A decisional flowchart for PI in HTA was developed between March and April 2019 following an iterative process, reviewed by the members of the PI Interest Group and other RedETS members and validated during an online deliberative meeting. The development of the flowchart was based on a previous methodological framework assessed in a pilot study., Results: The guidelines on how to involve patients in HTA in the RedETS were graphically represented in a flowchart. PI must be included in all HTA reports, except those that assess technologies with no relevant impact on patients' experiences, values, and preferences. Patient organizations or expert patients related to the topic of the HTA report must be identified and invited. These patients can participate in protocol development, outcomes' identification, assessment process, and report review. When the technology assessed affects in a relevant way patient experiences, values, and preferences, patient-based evidence should be included through a systematic literature review or a primary study., Conclusions: The decisional flowchart for PI in HTA contributes to the current methodological challenges by proposing a combination of direct involvement and patient-based evidence.

From its inception in 1999, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) committed to including the expertise, experiences, and perspectives of lay people, patients and carers, and patient organizations in its health technology assessments (HTAs). This is our story of patient involvement in HTA: from early methods designed for use when assessing medicines, widening to address the different requirements of HTAs for interventional procedures, medical technologies, and diagnostic technologies. We also chart the evolution and development of all our patient involvement methods over the past 20 years through regular evaluation and by responding to external challenge. However, we know that processes and methods alone are not enough. Through case studies we demonstrate the value of patient involvement in HTA and highlight the unique perspectives and experiences that patients bring to HTA committees. Finally, we discuss the underpinning principles and commitments that have made NICE a world leader in delivering meaningful and legitimate patient involvement.

A central function of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies is the production of HTA reports to support evidence-informed policy and decision making. HTA agencies are interested in understanding the mechanisms of HTA impact, which can be understood as the influence or impact of HTA report findings on decision making at various levels of the health system. The members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) meet at their annual Congress where impact story sharing is one important activity. This paper summarizes four stories of HTA impact that were finalists for the David Hailey Award for Best Impact Story.The methods to measure impact include: document review; claims analysis and review of reimbursement status; citation analysis; qualitative evaluation of stakeholders' views; and review of media response. HTA agency staff also observed changes in government activities and priorities based on the HTA. Impact assessment can provide information to improve the HTA process, for example, the value of patient and clinician engagement in the HTA process to better define the assessment question and literature reviews in a more holistic and balanced way.HTA reports produced by publicly funded HTA agencies are valued by health systems around the globe as they support decision making regarding the appropriate use, pricing, reimbursement, and disinvestment of health technologies. HTAs can also have a positive impact on information sharing between different levels of government and across stakeholder groups. These stories show how HTA can have a significant impact, irrespective of the health system and health technology being assessed.

Background: The frameworks used by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies for value assessment of medicines aim to optimize healthcare resource allocation. However, they may not be effective at capturing the value of antimicrobial drugs., Objectives: To analyze stakeholder perceptions regarding how antimicrobials are assessed for value for reimbursement purposes and how the Australian HTA framework accommodates the unique attributes of antimicrobials in cost-effectiveness evaluation., Methods: Eighteen individuals representing the pharmaceutical industry or policy-makers were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and thematically analyzed., Results: Key emergent themes were that reimbursement decision-making should consider the antibiotic spectrum when assessing value, risk of shortages, the impact of procurement processes on low-priced comparators, and the need for methodological transparency when antimicrobials are incorporated into the economic evaluation of other treatments., Conclusions: Participants agreed that the current HTA framework for antimicrobial value assessment is inadequate to properly inform funding decisions, as the contemporary definition of cost-effectiveness fails to explicitly incorporate the risk of future resistance. Policy-makers were uncertain about how to incorporate future resistance into economic evaluations without a systematic method to capture costs avoided due to good stewardship. Lacking financial reward for the benefits of narrower-spectrum antimicrobials, companies will likely focus on developing broad-spectrum agents with wider potential use. The perceived risks of shortages have influenced the funding of generic antimicrobials in Australia, with policy-makers suggesting a willingness to pay more for assured supply. Although antibiotics often underpin the effectiveness of other medicines, it is unclear how this is incorporated into economic models.

Objectives: Integration of ethics into technology assessment in healthcare (HTA) reports is directly linked to the need of decision makers to provide rational grounds justifying their social choices. In a decision-making paradigm, facts and values are intertwined and the social role of HTA reports is to provide relevant information to decision makers. Since 2003, numerous surveys and discussions have addressed different aspects of the integration of ethics into HTA. This study aims to clarify how HTA professionals consider the integration of ethics into HTA, so an international survey was conducted in 2018 and the results are reported here., Methods: A survey comprising twenty-two questions was designed and carried out from April 2018 to July 2018. Three hundred and twenty-eight HTA agencies from seventy-five countries were invited to participate in this survey., Results: Eighty-nine participants completed the survey, representing a participation rate of twenty-seven percent. As to how HTA reports should fulfill their social role, over 84 percent of respondents agreed upon the necessity to address this role for decision makers, patients, and citizens. At a lower level, the same was found regarding the necessity to make value-judgments explicit in different report sections, including ethical analysis. This contrasts with the response-variability obtained on the status of ethical analysis with the exception of the expertise required. Variability in stakeholder-participation usefulness was also observed., Conclusions: This study reveals the importance of a three-phase approach, including assessment, contextual data, and recommendations, and highlights the necessity to make explicit value-judgments and have a systematic ethical analysis in order to fulfill HTA's social role in guiding decision makers.

The history of European health technology assessment (HTA) goes back more than 30 years. Almost as old as HTA agencies themselves is the desire to achieve European collaboration. This gained further impetus with the establishment of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) in 2006. In this context, the field of information management faced specific challenges. Although these services are an integral part of HTA and information specialists play a key role here, this field is often not adequately represented in the HTA agencies within EUnetHTA. Furthermore, the organization of HTA production, including the types of HTAs produced, as well as funding, varies considerably. In order to meet these different conditions, information specialists have created various products and defined processes. With the EUnetHTA guideline, a common methodological understanding for the production of rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments now exists. Furthermore, the Standard Operating Procedures map the complex information retrieval processes within EUnetHTA in a hands-on manner. The newly established Information Specialist Network (ISN) will in future ensure that information specialists are involved in all EUnetHTA assessments and that the methods are applied consistently in all assessments. In addition, the steering committee of the ISN manages enquiries and can be contacted to discuss methodological issues. Major barriers such as heterogeneity in the daily work of the EUnetHTA members can only be overcome through more collaboration and training.

In Health Technology Assessment (HTA), clinical and economic evidence are assessed in the regulatory and reimbursement environments, with community input considered as complementary to this. Stakeholders are calling for more meaningful community engagement, but this will not be reached without a significant shift. The Centre for Community-Driven Research (CCDR) is a nonprofit organization bringing much needed change to the way we think about community engagement in health. This article is based on CCDR's experience and outlines three system changes needed to advance community engagement in decisions about health and HTA. This paper comes from the perspective of engaging everyday people in the process as opposed to representation on panels and committees. The three key areas of change that are discussed include building holistic evidence, creating supportive environments, and infrastructure for community engagement, with the term community referring to people affected by disease or health conditions and their carers/families.

Healthcare decision makers are increasingly demanding that health technology assessment (HTA) is patient focused, and considers data about patients' perspectives on and experiences with health technologies in their everyday lives. Related data are typically generated through qualitative research, and in HTA the typical approach is to synthesize primary qualitative research through the conduct of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Abbreviated HTA timelines often do not allow for the full 6-12 months it may take to complete a QES, which has prompted the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) to explore the concept of "rapid qualitative evidence synthesis" (rQES). In this paper, we describe our experiences conducting three rQES at CADTH, and reflect on challenges faced, successes, and lessons learned. Given limited methodological guidance to guide this work, our aim is to provide insight for researchers who may contemplate rQES. We suggest several lessons, including strategies to iteratively develop research questions and search for eligible studies, use search of filters and limits, and use of a single reviewer experienced in qualitative research throughout the review process. We acknowledge that there is room for debate, though believe rQES is a laudable goal and that it is possible to produce a quality, relevant, and useful product, even under restricted timelines. That said, it is vital to recognize what is lost in the name of rapidity. We intend our paper to advance the necessary debate about when rQES may be appropriate, and not, and enable productive discussions around methodological development.

Objectives: Increasing emphasis is given on involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA). While this is mainly done at the level of regional and national HTA agencies, this tendency is also emerging in local HTA units. In this study, we provide the results of a survey conducted in local HTA units in the province of Quebec, Canada. The aim of the survey was to provide an overview of local HTA unit practices to involve patients, users, caregivers, and citizens in their process, their interest in doing so, and their information needs for this., Methods: The survey was conducted in 2017 with a response rate of eleven units over a possibility of twelve., Results: Three units out of eleven (27.3 percent) never involved patients or members of the public in their processes and all indicated that they will involve them in the next few years. The three most important needs for support identified in the HTA units were in: recruiting and selecting patients; integrating experiential knowledge; and knowing and implementing the best methods and practices for partnership., Conclusion: Patient involvement in local HTA units is quickly evolving and that is why they urgently need tools to involve more effectively patients and members of the public in their process.

Objective: The Spanish Network of Agencies for Assessing National Health System Technologies and Performance (RedETS) defined a patient involvement (PI) framework for health technology assessment (HTA) activities in 2016. The aim of this study is to evaluate the process and impact of those PI initiatives that were implemented in the first year following the publication of this new framework., Methods: A survey was sent to those HTA researchers who implemented PI in RedETS projects. Responses were reviewed by two authors. An adapted thematic analysis was performed and the results were later discussed by all authors., Results: Six responses from six agencies/units were analyzed. The objectives of PI initiatives were the following: inclusion of patient perspectives, preferences and values; elicitation of important health outcomes measures; and barriers, facilitators, or suggestions for implementation. Different methods were used for PI: surveys, focus groups, in depth interviews, and participation in an expert panel. Five main themes emerged: (i) challenges with the recruitment process, (ii) needs identified, (iii) impact of PI, (iv) lessons learned, and (v) suggestions for the future., Conclusions: PI initiatives within the RedETS framework were tailored to each HTA project, its specific goals and the individual needs and resources of each HTA agency. The results also pointed out how PI has a relevant impact that has enriched RedETS products providing key information on experiences, values, and preferences of patients, contributions that benefit the HTA and the process of drawing up recommendations. The main challenges were related to recruitment processes and capacity building.

In many countries, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations determine the economic value of new drugs and make recommendations regarding appropriate pricing and coverage in national health systems. In the US, recent policy proposals aimed at reducing drug costs would link drug prices to six countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. We reviewed these countries' methods of HTA and guidance on price and coverage recommendations, analyzing methods and guidance documents for differences in (1) the methodologies HTA organizations use to conduct their evaluations and (2) considerations they use when making recommendations. We found important differences in the methods, interpretations of HTA findings, and condition-specific carve-outs that HTA organizations use to conduct evaluations and make recommendations. These variations have ethical implications because they influence the recommendations of HTA organizations, which affect access to the drug through national insurance and price negotiations with manufacturers. The differences in HTA approaches result from the distinct political, social, and cultural contexts of each organization and its value judgments. New cost-containment policies in the US should consider the ethical implications of the HTA reviews that they are considering relying on to negotiate drug prices and what values should be included in US pricing policy.

Objectives: Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process., Methods: We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory., Results: Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement., Conclusions: This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has gained recognition for performing independent health technology assessments (HTAs) that include the cost-effectiveness of selected new technologies in the United States. ICER has similarities with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales, but the amount of overlap and new methods adopted to meet stakeholder needs in the complex U.S. health care system have not been fully analyzed., Objective: To perform a comprehensive comparison of ICER and NICE., Methods: We compared ICER and NICE using the same framework as Drummond et al. (2008), which suggests 4 dimensions for comparison of HTA organizations: structure of HTA programs, methods of HTA, processes for conduct of HTA, and use of HTAs in decision making., Results: We found differences between ICER and NICE in the structure of HTA programs (setup of the organizations, governance issues, and funding); methods (perspective, costs, utilities, discounting, and thresholds); process (relationship with relevant stakeholders, deliberative decision-making processes, and timelines); and the use of HTA in decision making (the format and type of evidence generated, how the evidence is considered, and the format of the recommendations)., Conclusions: ICER uses a different approach for clinical review but performs cost-effectiveness analysis using methods similar to NICE. The key differences between NICE and ICER arise because of important differences between the United Kingdom's "single payer" health care system and the United States's pluralistic system. ICER's lack of mandatory power translates to substantial differences in terms of its processes and type of recommendations., Disclosures: No outside funding supported this study. Thokala has received grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) for modeling projects. Carlson has received grants from ICER, unrelated to this study. Drummond has nothing to disclose.

Introduction: Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries., Areas Covered: Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues., Expert Opinion: Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

Objectives: Using an example of an existing model constructed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to inform a real health technology assessment, this study seeks to demonstrate how a discretely integrated condition event (DICE) simulation can improve the implementation of Markov models., Methods: Using the technical report and spreadsheet, the original model was translated to a standard DICE simulation without making any changes to the design. All original analyses were repeated and the results were compared. Aspects that could have improved the original design were then considered., Results: The original model consisted of 32 copies (8 risk strata × 4 treatments) of the Markov structure, containing more than 6000 Microsoft Excel® formulas (18 MB files). Three aspects (nonadherence, scheduled treatment stop, and end of fracture risk) were handled by incorporating weighted averages into the cycle-specific calculations. The DICE implementation used 3 conditions to represent the states and a single transition event to apply the probabilities; 3 additional events processed the special aspects, and profiles handled the 8 strata (0.12 MB file). One replication took 16 seconds. The original results were reproduced but extensive additional sensitivity analyses, including structural analyses, were enabled., Conclusion: Implementing a real Markov model using DICE simulation both preserves the advantages of the approach and expands the available tools, improving transparency and ease of use and review., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are used as a policy tool to appraise the clinical value, or cost effectiveness, of new medicines to inform reimbursement decisions in health care. As HTA organisations have been established in different countries, it has become clear that the outcomes of medicine appraisals can vary from country to country, even though the same scientific evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials is available. The extant literature explains such variations with reference to institutional variables and administrative rules. However, little research has been conducted to advance the theoretical understanding of how variations in HTA outcomes might be explained. This paper compares cases of HTA in England and Germany using insights from Kuhn (1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) and Hall (1993, Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25, 275-296) to demonstrate how policy paradigms can explain the outcomes of HTA processes. The paper finds that HTA outcomes are influenced by a combination of logical issues that require reasoning within a paradigm, and institutional and political issues that speak to the interaction between ideational and interest-based variables. It sets out an approach that advances the theoretical explanation of divergent HTA outcomes, and offers an analytical basis on which to assess current and future policy changes in HTA.

Objectives: A centralised approach to health technology assessment (HTA) may facilitate optimal use of HTA resources. A regional approach may increase the chances of local implementation of recommendations. This study aimed to compare assessment procedures in England (centralised HTA approach) with Spain (regional HTA approach) discussing key challenges and opportunities from both approaches., Methods: We compared technology assessments of anticancer medicines in the two jurisdictions from 2008 to 2015. To assess the implementation of HTA recommendations, we assessed trends in medicine usage using regression methods. We used IQVIA data, from 2011 to 2016, for a sample of 11 medicines. We used CatSalut data from Catalonia to assess the implementation of local recommendations., Results: In England, 66 assessments were undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), using a standardised methodology. In Spain, there were 79 reports undertaken by a range of bodies using a shared process and coordinated through the GENESIS collaboration; the assessment methods used varied substantially. Overall, the recommendations in the two jurisdictions were similar. Regression analyses indicate that where there is a positive recommendation by HTA bodies, the usage of the medicine responds most strongly (p < 0.001) in Catalonia (4.892), followed by England (3.120) and Spain (1.693)., Conclusions: This study suggests that medicine utilisation does respond to the positive recommendations of HTA bodies. However, if HTA capacity is organised primarily regionally, considerable effort may be required in coordination, to ensure consistent and rigorous assessments and adequate implementation of HTA findings.

For patients, innovations in healthcare can be both a great blessing (when saving people's life or improving quality of life), as well as a curse (when only few people have access, e.g., because of high prices). Thus, when healthcare innovations are proven safe and ready for application, decision makers have to apply access policies and sometimes face difficult assessments. In this context, health technology assessment (HTA) plays a crucial role at European Union level, forming an evidence-based, transparent basis for decision making through joint assessments. However, pricing and reimbursement aspects are exempt from collaborative assessments, since these are in the responsibility of the EU Member States: according to Art. 168(7) TFEU the 'organisation and delivery of health services and medical care [… including] the allocation of the resources assigned to them' remain an exclusive competence of Member States. However, future challenges may require further cooperation.

Patient preference studies could provide valuable insights to a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee into the preferences patients have for different treatment options, especially if the study sample is representative of the broader patient population. We identify three main uses of patient preference studies along a technology's pathway from drug development to clinical use: in early clinical development to guide the selection of appropriate endpoints, to inform benefit-risk assessments carried out by regulators and to inform reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment bodies. In the context of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's methods and processes, we do not see a role for quantitative patient preference data to be directly incorporated into health economic modelling. Rather, we see a role for patient preference studies to be submitted alongside other types of evidence. Examples where patient preference studies might have added value in health technology assessments include cases where two distinctly different treatment options are being compared, when patients have to decide between multiple treatment options, when technologies have important non-health benefits or when a treatment is indicated for a heterogenous population.

Objective: One of the good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) is having a clear link between the assessment and decision making. The objective of the 2019 Latin American Policy Forum (LatamPF) of Health Technology Assessment International was to explore different models of connection between HTA and decision making and to discuss the potential applicability of such models in Latin America., Methods: This paper is based on a background document and the deliberations of the members of the LatamPF (fifty-four participants from twelve countries) where a design-thinking methodology was used., Results: The participants agreed that insufficient links between HTA and decision making undermine the legitimacy of decisions, expose the HTA process to excessive political and judicial influence, and promote the exclusion of some stakeholders from participating in the assessment process and decision making. High priority aspects of the HTA process that could feasibly be improved and which hold the greatest potential to generate positive changes in the health systems in the region were identified. The majority of these aspects were associated with the appropriate institutionalization of HTA, a greater degree of participation by different stakeholders, and improved transparency in the HTA process., Conclusions: The LatamPF identified barriers and recommended actions to strengthen the link between HTA and decision making. Participants emphasized that there is now a window of opportunity in the region as many societal actors see this as a priority. For this reason, health system stakeholders must take this opportunity to increase efforts toward strengthening the link between HTA and decision making.

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa., Methods: The concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA., Results: Between the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting., Conclusion: While the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.

Objectives: The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world., Methods: We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the "public" and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world., Results: The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process., Conclusions: There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.

Objetivos: Un vínculo claro entre la evaluación y la toma de decisión constituye un principio de buena práctica en evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETESA) reconocido a nivel internacional. El objetivo del Foro de Políticas en Latino-América (LatamPF) 2019 de Health Technology Assessment International fue explorar los diferentes modelos que vinculan la ETESA y la toma de decisión y discutir su potencial aplicabilidad en Latino-América., Métodos: Este manuscrito está basado en un documento base y en el trabajo deliberativo realizado por los miembros (54 participantes, 12 países) que asistieron al LatamPF, a través de la metodología design thinking., Resultados: Los participantes coincidieron en que la relación inapropiada entre la ETESA y la toma de decisión atenta hoy contra la legitimidad de las decisiones, expone al proceso de ETESA a una excesiva influencia política y judicial, y condiciona que algunos actores se sientan relegados del proceso de evaluación y toma de decisión. Se identificaron los atributos del proceso de ETESA más prioritarios y factibles de ser mejorados en la región, y con el mayor potencial para generar un cambio positivo en los sistemas de salud. La mayor parte de estos están vinculados con la apropiada institucionalización de la ETESA, ampliar la participación de los diferentes actores y mejorar la transparencia de los procesos de ETESA., Conclusiones: El LatamPF ha identificado barreras y recomendado acciones para reforzar el vínculo entre ETESA y la decisión. A su vez, existe en estos momentos una ventana de oportunidad en la región, ya que el tema es visualizado como una prioridad por gran parte de los actores de la sociedad. Por ello, los diferentes actores de los sistemas sanitarios deberían ahora tomar esta oportunidad para avanzar en el fortalecimiento del vínculo entre ETESA y toma de decisión.

Objective: Gather health technology assessment (HTA) experts' insights on the desirability and acceptability of treatment-sequencing models applied to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS)., Data Source/study Setting: Primary data., Study Design: In-depth double-blind semi-structured telephone interviews., Data Collection/extraction Methods: General themes were extracted from qualitative interviews., Principal Findings: Although experts confirmed the importance of evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments as part of a sequence, the current HTA decision making framework is not conducive to this. Developing an RRMS treatment-sequencing model that meets HTA requirements is difficult, in particular due to scarcity of effectiveness data in later treatment lines., Conclusions: At present, a treatment-sequencing model for RRMS may be desirable yet not requested by HTA bodies for their decision making. However, there could be other areas where a treatment-sequencing model for RRMS is of use.