Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:52:27.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survey investigating the knowledge and awareness of payers and patient advocacy groups about the health technology assessment process in Lebanon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

Lama Al-Harakeh ,
Hanine Abbas ,
Hamad Hassan ,
Zainoun Hallal ,
Ghassan Hamadeh ,
Mazen Kurdi ,
Carla Abou Selwan Open the ORCID record for Carla Abou Selwan [Opens in a new window]  and
Rita Karam Open the ORCID record for Rita Karam [Opens in a new window]
Lama Al-Harakeh
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
Hanine Abbas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
Hamad Hassan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Public Health, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
Zainoun Hallal
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
Ghassan Hamadeh
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
Mazen Kurdi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
Carla Abou Selwan
Affiliation:
SciencePRO sarl, Metn, Lebanon
Rita Karam*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon
*
Author for correspondence: Rita Karam, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The survey aims to assess the knowledge and awareness of Reimbursement Bodies (RBs) and Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) in Lebanon and the possible involvement of patients in the health technology assessment (HTA) process in the absence of a well-established HTA structure and to identify the actions to be taken at this level. Structured questionnaires were administered to eleven key participants from both RBs and PAGs. The survey utilized two different questionnaires, each composed of two open-ended questions and ten close-ended questions. RBs recognized the need for clinical and technical guidelines to optimize the HTA process, whereas PAGs stated that they are familiar with the current assessment and reimbursement process. A lack of interaction between the payers and the PAGs was reported mainly due to the absence of laws that involve patients in the assessment process. All the payers and three out of five of PAGs encouraged the involvement of PAGs in the assessment process. They reported that patients require support, education, and training to be efficiently involved. A short-term plan for involving patients in the assessment process can be implemented in light of RBs' and PAGs' openness for such involvement. In the long run, the collaboration between both parties needs to be more formalized and structured. Education and training programs are to be suggested for other PAGs. The institutionalization of an HTA body that unifies all the fragmented RBs, including a patient's representation to optimize the reimbursement process and to engage patients, is recommended.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPatient advocacy groupsReimbursement bodiesPatient involvementLebanon
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e72
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Clark, O. Global healthcare innovation technology trends for 2019-2025. Available from: https://www.booking-wp-plugin.com/global-healthcare-trends-2019-2025/.Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, Luce, BR, Neumann, PJ, Siebert, U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EUPATI. Health technology assessment: Key definitions. Available from: https://toolbox.eupati.eu/resources/health-technology-assessment-key-definitions/.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, B, Oortwijn, W, Schuller, T. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:187–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Hansen, HP, Scalzo, AL, Mossman, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NICE. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/patients-should-be-more-involved-in-%20decisions-about-their-care-says-nice (accessed April 2020).Google Scholar
Kobelt, G, Berg, J, Lindgren, P, Fredrikson, S, Jönsson, B. Costs and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:918–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, K. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13:245–51.Google Scholar
HTAi. Values and standards for patient involvement in HTA. 2014. Available from: https://htai.org/interest-groups/pcig/values-and-standards/.Google Scholar
Hunter, A, Facey, K, Thomas, V, Haerry, D, Warner, K, Klingmann, I, et al. EUPATI guidance for patient involvement in medicines research and development: Health technology assessment. Front Med. 2018;5:231–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CADTH. Instructions for providing patient input to the CADTH Common Drug Review. 2019. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/cdr-pdf/Instructions_for_Providing_Patient_Input_to_CDR.pdf.Google Scholar
Berglas, S, Jutai, L, MacKean, G, Weeks, L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH common drug review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MoPH. Statistical bulletin. 2018. Available from: https://www.moph.gov.lb/en/DynamicPages/index/8/327/statistical-bulletins.Google Scholar
MoPH. Health beyond politics. 2009. Available from: https://www.moph.gov.lb/en/Pages/0/11736/health-beyond-politics.Google Scholar
NSSF. 2019. https://www.cnss.gov.lb/index.php/statisctics.Google Scholar
MoPH. Health system and reform in Lebanon. 2003. Available from: https://www.moph.gov.lb/en/Pages/131/3932/health-system-and-reform-in-lebanon#/en/view/3910/health-system-and-reform-in-lebanon-2003.Google Scholar
Markman, M. The increasingly complex world of cancer patient advocacy organizations. Curr Oncol Rep. 2008;10:1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, S. The patient protection and affordable care act: Implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep. 2011;126:130–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fasseeh, A, Karam, R, Jameleddine, M, George, M, Kristensen, FB, Al-Rabayah, AA, et al. Implementation of health technology assessment in the Middle East and north Africa: Comparison between the current and preferred Status. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:15–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, AM, Wale, JL. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: An international snapshot. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, Baltussen, R, Boysen, M, Kalo, Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO. Access to new medicines in Europe: Technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research. 2015. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/health-technologies-and-medicines/publications/2015/access-to-new-medicines-in-europe-technical-review-of-policy-initiatives-and-opportunities-for-collaboration-and-research-2015.Google Scholar
Porzsolt, F, Rocha, NG, Toledo-Arruda, AC, Thomaz, TG, Moraes, C, Bessa-Guerra, TR, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different messages. Pragmat Obs Res. 2015;6:47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drugs CAF, Health Ti. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health-CADTH. 2007.Google Scholar
Wortley, S, Tong, A, Howard, K. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: A nominal group technique with members of the public. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baltussen, R, Niessen, L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messina, J, Grainger, DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. The Patient. 2012;5:199–211.Google ScholarPubMed
EPF. http://www.eu-patient.eu/About-EPF/whoweare (accesssed April 2020).Google Scholar
Facey, KM, Bedlington, N, Berglas, S, Bertelsen, N, Single, AN, Thomas, V. Putting patients at the centre of healthcare: Progress and challenges for health technology assessments. The Patient. 2018;11:581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar