Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:17:17.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS ACROSS EUROPE

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Oyinlola Oyebode Open the ORCID record for Oyinlola Oyebode [Opens in a new window] ,
Zoe Garrett ,
Elizabeth George ,
Agnese Cangini ,
Luisa Anna Adele Muscolo ,
Simone Warren ,
Bertalan Nemeth ,
Csenge Földesi ,
Marcela Heislerová  and
Eva Gajdošová
Oyinlola Oyebode
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care [email protected]
Zoe Garrett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Elizabeth George
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Agnese Cangini
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)
Luisa Anna Adele Muscolo
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)
Simone Warren
Affiliation:
Clinical and Health Psychology, ZorgInstituut Nederland
Bertalan Nemeth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Quality and Organizational Development in HealthCare and Medicine (Hungary)
Csenge Földesi
Affiliation:
National Institute for Quality and Organizational Development in HealthCare and Medicine (Hungary)
Marcela Heislerová
Affiliation:
State Institute for Drug Control
Eva Gajdošová
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare evidence requirements for health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals by national agencies across Europe responsible for reimbursement decisions focusing specifically on relative effectiveness assessment.

Methods: Evidence requirements from thirty-three European countries were requested and twenty-nine national agencies provided documents to review. Data were extracted from national documents (manufacturer's submission templates and associated guidance) into a purpose-made framework with categories covering information about the health condition, the technology, clinical effectiveness and safety.

Results: The level of detail in the required evidence varies considerably across countries. Some countries include specific questions while others request information under general headings. Some countries include all information in a single document, which may or may not include guidance on how to complete the template. Others have specific guidance documents or methods and process manuals that help with the completion of the submission templates. Despite differences in quantity and detail, the content of the evidence requirements is broadly similar. All countries ask for information on the health technology, target disease, and clinical effectiveness and safety. However, one country only requests clinical effectiveness information as part of cost-effectiveness analyses. We found twenty-six evidence requirements for which generic answers may apply across borders and nineteen in which countries requested nationally specific information.

Conclusions: This work suggests that it would be possible to put together a minimum set of evidence requirements for HTA to support reimbursement decisions across Europe which could facilitate collaboration between jurisdictions.

Keywords

Technology assessmentbiomedicalBiomedical technologyHealth policyDelivery of health careReimbursement mechanisms
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2 , 2015 , pp. 59 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Jonsson, E. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness in Sweden. Value Health. 2010;13 (Suppl 1):S6–S7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Hutton, J, Trueman, P, Facey, K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Hailey, D. Development of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):24–27.Google Scholar
4. Mathes, T, Jacobs, E, Morfeld, JCC, Pieper, D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations–A comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:371.Google Scholar
5. Asua Batarrita, J. [The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) or the need for collaboration in evaluating health technologies]. Med Clín (Barc). 1999;112 (Suppl 1):86–89.Google Scholar
6. Kristensen, FBB, Lampe, K, Chase, DL, et al. Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):1–8.Google Scholar
7. Kristensen, FBB, Mäkelä, M, Neikter, SAA, etal. European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA: Planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):107–116.Google Scholar
8. Kleijnen, S, George, E, Goulden, S, et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012;15:954–960.Google Scholar
9. Pasternack, I, Anttila, H, Mäkelä, M, et al. Testing the HTA core model: Experiences from two pilot projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):21–27.Google Scholar
10. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Garrido, MVV, et al. The HTA core model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):9–20.Google Scholar
11. UnetHTA website. http://www.eunethta.eu/ (accessed April 7, 2014).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Oyebode supplementary material

Table S1

Download Oyebode supplementary material(File)
File 35.5 KB