D2 - priority Setting for Health Technology - Bernice Tsoi, Lisa Masucci - Salon E
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
364
On Slideshare
364
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Priority Setting for HealthTechnology Assessment of Non-pharmaceutical Technologies:Practical Canadian andInternational ApproachesBernice Tsoi, Lisa Masucci, Kaitryn Campbell, Pimwara Tanvejsilp, DariaO’Reilly, Mike Drummond, Ron GoereeMay 7, 2013
  • 2. Agenda Introduction to HTA and its Processes Objectives of Study Methods Results Recommendations & ConclusionNOTE: Points of interest are denoted by:
  • 3. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) “Multi-disciplinary process … summarises informationabout the medical, social, economic and ethical issuesrelated to the use of a health technology...to informthe formulation of safe and effective health policies”(Garrido et al, 2006) HTA can enter into the following policy-processes:• Agenda setting• Policy formulation• Decision making (e.g. reimbursement)Garrido et al (2008) Health technology assessment and healthpolicy making- current status, challenges and potential. WHO.
  • 4. Figure 1: Four principal stages to HTAHTA ProcessIdentify Topic•May includeprioritizationConductAssessmentDisseminateFindingsEvaluateImpact ofHTA onHealthPolicyvan Nooten et al (2012) Drug Discov Today; 17: 615-622.
  • 5. 5 Elements to Topic Identification andPrioritization1. Identify problems of relevance2. Identify possible types of assessment to helpaddress these decision problems,3. Judge potential relative benefits - costs to helpset priorities b/t topics,4. Communicate priorities to those responsible forundertaking assessments,5. Monitor and review assessments and prioritiesHenshall et al (1997) Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 13: 144-185.
  • 6. Objectives of Study To describe and to evaluate the current approachesfor:(i) topic identification, and(ii) prioritizationfor the HTA assessment of non-pharmaceuticaltechnologies across four Canadian and eightinternational HTA organizations
  • 7. METHODS
  • 8. Methods Systematic literature review:• Database searched: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, HEED,PubMed, BIOSIS• Grey literature: agency websites, policy documents,commissioned report, working papers• Literature published up to September 4, 2012 Interviews• Canadian HTA representatives to ensure accuracy indata collection
  • 9. List of HTA Agencies Studied 12 quasi-governmental agencies across nine countries• Australia- Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC)• Belgium- Health Care Knowledge Center (KCE)• Canada- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)Health Quality Ontario, formerly: Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS)/Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC)Institut National D’Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux (INESSS)Alberta Health and Wellness (AHW)• Denmark- Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA)• England- National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)• Finland- Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)• Germany- Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen(iQWiG)/ Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)• Sweden- Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering (SBU)• USA- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
  • 10. RESULTS
  • 11. Figure 2: PRISMA Diagram of SystematicLiterature Review
  • 12. Literature Search Results Of the 51 studies included:23 16TopicnominationPrioritization7Figure 3: Breakdown of study bytopicFigure 4: Number of studies publishedby jurisdiction
  • 13. Table 1: Types of Non-pharmaceuticalTechnologies AssessedMedicaldevicesProcedures DiagnosticTestsPublic-healthinterventions(e.g. screening/prevention)Australia (MSAC)    Belgium (KCE)    Canada (CADTH)    Canada (AHW)    Canada (OHTAC; MAS)    Canada (INESSS)    Denmark (DACEHTA)    England (NICE; MTAC)    Finland (FinOHTA)    Germany (JDC; IQWiG)    Sweden (SBU)    USA (CMS; AHRQ)    All agencies studied currently assess a wide varietyof non-pharmaceutical health technologies.
  • 14. Topic Identification Goal: Identify topics that are of most relevance todecision-makers Process categorized as either:(i) Open Process: Topics proposed by wide group ofinternal and external stakeholders• May involve additional strategies (e.g. horizon-scanning)(ii) Focused Process: Topics proposed internally
  • 15. Table 2: Who can Nominate HTA Topics?Organization Country Referrals received from: HorizonScanningMinistrySHIPayerAdvisoryGroupsMedicalAssociationHospitals/HealthauthoritiesManufacturerHealthcareprovidersPatientGroupsPatientGeneralPublicMSAC Australia     KCE Belgium    CADTH Canada       AHW Canada         OHTAC; MAS Canada    INESSS Canada    DACEHTA Denmark NICE; MTAC England    FinOHTA Finland G-BA; iQWiG Germany    SBU Sweden     CMS; AHRQ USA     Majority of organizations have adopted an openprocess in nominating non-pharmaceutical HTA topics
  • 16. Requirements for Topic Identification Few agencies have clear eligibility requirements Of those with explicit requirements, it ensures:1. Relevance and appropriateness of topics2. Temporal proximity
  • 17. Prioritization and Selection of HTA: Goal: To develop set of criteria to evaluate and ratepotential topics against others, while consideringadditional quantitative and qualitative informationrelevant to each assessment Criteria can be classified as either:(i) Disease attributes(ii) Attributes of the technology(iii) Organization/ system-related concerns(iv) Technical issues
  • 18. Table 3: Criteria Considered in PrioritizationCriteria DescriptionClinical impact Claimed therapeutic benefit of the proposedtechnology in comparison to current careFinancial impact Potential total costs and incremental budgetaryimpact from a policy changes with thistechnology in comparison to current careNumber of patients Prevalence or incidence of the conditionDisease burden Disease burden of the population affected bythis technology.Variation in existing clinicalpracticeVariation in utilization rates of this technology forthe given clinical conditionCurrent technology access/usePattern of access and utilization impact of thetechnology in the current healthcare systemFeasibility Availability of evidence and ability of this HTA tobe readily conducted.Economic impact Potential cost-effectiveness of the newtechnology and potential cost-effectiveness ofconducting an assessment.Impact on health policies Health policy implications associated from thepolicy changes with this technology
  • 19. Table 4: Which Criteria are Considered?Organization Country Criteria considered:ClinicalimpactFinancialimpactNo.ofpatientsDiseaseburdenVariationinexistingclinicalpracticeCurrenttechnologyaccess/useFeasibilityEconomicimpactImpactonhealthpoliciesMSAC Australia      KCE Belgium   CADTH Canada         AHW Canada        OHTAC; MAS Canada        INESSS Canada     DACEHTA Denmark   NICE; MTAC England       FinOHTA Finland    G-BA; iQWiG Germany  SBU Sweden       CMS; AHRQ USA       
  • 20. Prioritization and Selection of HTA: A proactive approach to prioritization observed in allorganizations Heterogeneity in the prioritization criteria existalthough, the most commonly-cited criteria are:1. Clinical impact (n=11/12)2. Financial impact (n=10/12)3. Feasibility = Number of patients = Disease burden(n= 8/12)Despite significant heterogeneity, most priority-settingconsiders the available evidence and the likelyoutcomes of assessment
  • 21. Prioritization and Selection of HTA: Overall, process lacks transparency with the exceptionof:• CADTH: weighted rankings of quantitative scores1• NICE: ordinal rating scale2Although both agencies have an explicit rating/rankingsystem, they also allow consideration of additionalcontextual factors1. Husereau et al (2010) Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 26:341-347.2. NICE (2012) Updated priorisation criteria for referral oftechnology appraisal to NICE
  • 22. GENERALRECOMMENDATIONS ANDCONCLUSIONS
  • 23. General Recommendations to PrioritySetting HTA is adaptive to a jurisdiction’s health care valuesand political environment• Process must be flexible given that it exists in a world ofconstant flux Flexibility must be balanced with a systematicapproach• Consistent membership vs. weighting criteria Transparency:• Can be improved with increased interaction anddialogue• But, has cost and time implications
  • 24. Conclusions Approach should reflect the program’s goals,resources available and the preferred workingmethodology of those involved. Most common criteria: clinical impact, financialimpact, number of patients, disease burden andfeasibility. Others may be included that are specific toorganization’s and jurisdiction’s needs. Tradeoffs exist in developing a priority-settingapproach:• Clarity/transparency vs. timeliness• Flexibility vs. systematic
  • 25. Acknowledgements Funding from this study was provided by Health Canada. Personnel support from Award from the Father SeanO’Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph’s HealthcareHamilton and the CIHR Drug Safety and EffectivenessCross-Disciplinary Training (DSECT) program.The views presented here are solely of the presenters anddo not necessarily reflect official views of Health Canada.
  • 26. Thank youContacttsoib@mcmaster.ca26