Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 113, Issue 3, December 2013, Pages 305-312
Health Policy

Development of archetypes for non-ranking classification and comparison of European National Health Technology Assessment systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

European countries are increasingly utilising health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement decision-making. However, the current European HTA environment is very diverse, and projects are already underway to initiate a more efficient and aligned HTA practice within Europe. This study aims to identify a non-ranking method for classifying the diversity of European HTA agencies process and the organisational architecture of the national regulatory review to reimbursement systems.

Method/results

Using a previously developed mapping methodology, this research created process maps to describe national processes for regulatory review to reimbursement for 33 European jurisdictions. These process maps enabled the creation of 2 HTA taxonomic sets. The confluence of the two taxonomic sets was subsequently cross-referenced to identify 10 HTA archetype groups.

Discussion

HTA is a young, rapidly evolving field and it can be argued that optimal practices for performing HTA are yet to emerge. Therefore, a non-ranking classification approach could objectively characterise and compare the diversity observed in the current European HTA environment.

Introduction

As with much of the rest of the world, healthcare expenditure in Europe is rising faster than national gross domestic product (GDP) [1]. Healthcare resources face an increasing demand from consumers resulting in a greater gap between public expectations and affordability [2]. With limited options for additional healthcare funding, policy/coverage decision makers are turning to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in order to ensure healthcare resources are used efficiently. In general, HTA for coverage decision-making evaluates the added therapeutic benefits, the risks and the uncertainties of applying the new technology to the coverage population in the context of the local standard of care. In addition, HTA may also include economic assessment of the new technology. A typical output from HTA is a recommendation as to the use and/or relative value of the technology to the decision maker and payer [3], [4], [5].

One particularly impactful aspect of decision-making with regard to healthcare resource allocation occurs when HTA recommendations result in highly publicised negative decisions for non-coverage of new pharmaceuticals [6]. New pharmaceuticals only form a small proportion of most total healthcare budgets [7]. However, they can have an immediate budget impact and are a component of healthcare expenditure that, from a political perspective, are measurable and relatively easy to regulate in comparison to, for example, salaries of healthcare professionals, costs incurred from clinical errors or finding a consensus for general expenditure cuts in healthcare services [8], [9], [10]. The impact of HTA on new pharmaceutical coverage decision-making in Europe has caused concern amongst patient groups over access to medicines and rationing and by the pharmaceutical industry in relation to curbing innovation and the impact on pricing of new pharmaceuticals [11], [12], [13]. A key concern shared by these and other healthcare stakeholders, is the degree of variation by which HTA is conducted and applied across Europe [14].

The variation in philosophies and techniques across national and regional HTA bodies in Europe is a product of political, social and financial differences. European healthcare systems can be classified according to many different typologies of varying indicators [15], [16]. However, they are generally based upon 3 different ideologies of social welfare; the Liberal/Beveridge model that provides modest benefits according to strict eligibility criteria and means testing, the Conservative/Bismark regime of social insurance coverage that provides benefits proportional to earnings and the Social Democratic/Scandinavian model of high universalism for the distribution of benefits [16]. Within the context of these different healthcare ideologies, HTA has developed as standalone agencies or as units within existing healthcare agencies and their remit and context varies considerably by country or region. The different systems have spawned different approaches to HTA, resulting in a diversity of organisational architectures and processes for HTA assessment [17]. Key aspects of the variation between European HTA systems are (1) the extent of information that is applied to the assessment of the new technology, especially the use of economic information (2) the level of independence between the processes for assessment, appraisal and decision-making and (3) the variation in methodologies used in the evaluations [18].

Although some factors are unique to each nation and therefore cannot be aligned, such as the political milieu and a country's ability to fund national healthcare schemes, the fundamental scientific criteria used for the HTA evaluation should have their basis in consistently applied, scientifically rigorous methodologies that encourage transparency of quality decision-making. The European Commission has recognised the need for a more efficient European HTA environment to help overcome inequalities in patient access to therapies [19]. Accordingly, this organisation has recently amended the Transparency Directive to ensure timely coverage decision-making and provided grants to support the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), which recently implemented the EUnetHTA Joint Action project 2 (EUnetHTA JA2) to establish sustainable cross-border HTA collaboration in Europe with the development of a core HTA model [20], [21].

The aims of this study were (1) to provide a high-level overview and characterise the regulatory, HTA and decision-making systems for new pharmaceuticals throughout Europe through the development of standardised process maps and to categorise these according to a standard taxonomy; (2) to categorise the diversity of the different HTA systems by identifying sub-groups with common elements of process (i.e., archetypes) that could be used to describe general characteristics common to the different systems within each archetype.

Resources are currently available that offer flow diagrams and pictorial representations of coverage systems [22], [23], [24]. However, this study aimed to provide additional value to the currently available resources through the application of a novel mapping process that ensures all maps conform to a uniform methodology, a common graphical representation and standardised descriptors focused on reimbursement.

Section snippets

Methods

This research chose to focus on 33 jurisdictions from the European Economic Area, this includes the English, Scottish and Welsh systems as individual jurisdictions. The national HTA agencies or committees were identified using HTA methodologies from official agency or ministry of health websites. These agencies or committees were used to create process maps representing the pathways for regulatory, HTA and coverage decisions were created for new active substances (NASs). For the purpose of this

Results

Process maps were developed, for each of the 33 European nations to illustrate the steps involved in regulatory, HTA, and coverage processes for NASs. The maps identified notable differences in the extent to which agencies conducted a defined set of core functions, the number of decision-making bodies, their sequence within the overall process, and the key HTA tasks that they undertake. Although many European nations still do not have a formal HTA system, 31 of the 33 systems profiled for this

Discussion

To achieve the first aim of this study, to provide a high-level overview of the European regulatory review, HTA and decision-making systems to identify HTA agency archetype groupings for a non-ranking method of classification, we needed to understand and characterise the systems used for regulatory, HTA and coverage across the 33 European countries that were the focus of this study. Therefore, 33 process maps were produced that showed the varying complexity of the different coverage systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Lawrence Liberti (CIRS) and Patricia Connelly (CIRS) for their editorial assistance and to thank Adrian Griffin (Johnson & Johnson) for his thoughtful review of this manuscript.

References (35)

  • P. Littlejohns et al.

    10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial

    Lancet Oncology

    (2009)
  • M. Myllykangas et al.

    Attitudes to cuts in expenditure and increased fees in health care

    Public Health

    (1997)
  • R. Eldessouki et al.

    Health care system information sharing: a step toward better health globally

    Value in Health Regional Issues

    (2012)
  • D. Beyer et al.

    Health care regulation across Europe from funding crisis to productivity imperative. BCG perspectives

    (2007)
  • F. Pammolli et al.

    The sustainability of European health care systems: beyond income and aging

    European Journal of Health Economics

    (2012)
  • C. Henshall et al.

    Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities

    International Journal of Technology Assessment

    (2011)
  • M.F. Drummond et al.

    Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

    International Journal of Technology Assessment

    (2008)
  • K. Facey

    Health Technology Assessment (HTA) glossary

    (2006)
  • OECD

    Health at a glance 2011: OECD indicators

    (2011)
  • BMA

    Doctors’ pay and tackling the financial pressures in the NHS

    (2010)
  • J. Reynard et al.

    Practical patient safety

    (2009)
  • M. Baker

    Health technology assessment: why it matters to patient groups

    Regulatory Rapporteur

    (2011)
  • A. Wyke

    Feedback from patient rapporteurs

    (2011)
  • F. Pammolli et al.

    The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

    (2011)
  • EUNetHTA

    Comments to EUnetHTA proposal Nov 2007

    (2007)
  • T.A. Eikemo et al.

    The welfare state: a glossary for public health

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2008)
  • W. Arts et al.

    Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report

    Journal of European Social Policy

    (2002)
  • Cited by (28)

    • Reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European as well as Middle Eastern countries: A survey of their current use and future outlook

      2023, Drug Discovery Today
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, there is considerable variation between countries regarding how payment and reimbursement systems are organised.21 Research shows that the applicability of these models might therefore differ between countries.3,8,18,21 Much attention has been given to different models and their implementation feasibility in high-income countries.9–10,18–19,22–24

    • Differences in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Among European Jurisdictions: The Role of Practice Variations

      2020, Value in Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      Based on our results, it is recommended to take a systematic approach to investigating practice differences between HTA jurisdictions. Previous research has aimed to clarify archetypes in HTA approaches based on national process maps.22 Such archetypes may help with interpreting national HTA recommendations in an international context.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Manager CIRS HTA Programmes at time of manuscript development.

    View full text