University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

        JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

        Browse

        All of UHRABy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

        Arkivum Files

        My Downloads
        View Item 
        • UHRA Home
        • University of Hertfordshire
        • Research publications
        • View Item
        • UHRA Home
        • University of Hertfordshire
        • Research publications
        • View Item

        Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies : Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland

        View/Open
        Final Accepted Version (PDF, 359Kb)
        Author
        Allen, Nicola
        Walker, Stuart R
        Liberti, Lawrence
        Salek, Sam
        Attention
        2299/19806
        Abstract
        OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the national regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and reimbursement pathways for public health care in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland, to compare initial Canadian national HTA recommendations with the initial decisions of the other HTA agencies, and to identify factors for differing national HTA recommendations between the four HTA agencies. METHODS: Information from the public domain was used to develop a regulatory process map for each jurisdiction and to compare the HTA agencies' reimbursement recommendations. Medicines that were reviewed by all four agencies and received a negative recommendation from only one agency were selected as case studies. RESULTS: All four countries have a national HTA agency. Their reimbursement recommendations are guided by both clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and the necessity for patient input. Their activities, however, vary because of different mandates and their unique political, social, and population needs. All have an implicit or explicit quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The seven divergent case studies demonstrate examples in which new medicine-indication pairs have been rejected because of uncertainties surrounding a range of factors including cost-effectiveness, comparator choice, clinical benefit, safety, trial design, and submission timing. CONCLUSIONS: The four HTA agencies selected for inclusion in this study share common factors, including a focus on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in their decision-making processes. The differences in recommendations could be considered to be due to an individual agency's approach to risk perception, and the comparator choice used in clinical and cost-effectiveness studies.
        Publication date
        2017-03-31
        Published in
        Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
        Published version
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.014
        License
        http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
        Other links
        http://hdl.handle.net/2299/19806
        Relations
        School of Life and Medical Sciences
        Metadata
        Show full item record
        Keep in touch

        © 2019 University of Hertfordshire

        I want to...

        • Apply for a course
        • Download a Prospectus
        • Find a job at the University
        • Make a complaint
        • Contact the Press Office

        Go to...

        • Accommodation booking
        • Your student record
        • Bayfordbury
        • KASPAR
        • UH Arts

        The small print

        • Terms of use
        • Privacy and cookies
        • Criminal Finances Act 2017
        • Modern Slavery Act 2015
        • Sitemap

        Find/Contact us

        • T: +44 (0)1707 284000
        • E: ask@herts.ac.uk
        • Where to find us
        • Parking
        • hr
        • qaa
        • stonewall
        • AMBA
        • ECU Race Charter
        • disability confident
        • AthenaSwan