The sandbox approach, developed in the financial technologies sector, creates an environment to collaboratively develop and test innovative new products, methods and regulatory approaches, separated from business as usual. It has been used in health care to encourage innovation in response to emerging challenges, but, until recently, has not been used in health technology assessment (HTA). This article summarizes our learnings from using the sandbox approach to address three challenges facing HTA organizations and to identify implications for the use of this approach in HTA.

We identified three challenging contemporary HTA-related topics to explore in a sandbox environment, away from the pressures and interests of “live” assessments. We convened a pool of 120 stakeholders and experts to participate in various sandbox activities and ultimately co-develop solutions to help HTA organizations respond to the identified challenges.

Important general learnings about the potential benefits and implementation of a sandbox approach in HTA were identified. Consequently, we developed recommendations to guide its use, including how to implement an HTA sandbox in an effective way and the types of challenges for which it may be best suited.

For many HTA organizations, it is difficult to carefully consider emerging challenges and innovate their processes due to risks associated with decision errors and resource limitations. The sandbox approach could reduce these barriers. The potential benefits of addressing HTA challenges in a collaborative “safe space” are considerable.

The decision-making (DM) process in public administration is the subject of research from different perspectives and disciplines. Evidence-based policies, such as health technology assessment (HTA), are not the only support on which public policies are designed. During the COVID-19 pandemic WHO, national and subnational institutions developed HTA reports to guide DM. Despite this, inadequate variability was observed in the health technologies recommended and reimbursed by different provincial Health Ministries in a federally organized developing country like Argentina. The processes and results of DM on health technologies for COVID-19 in Health Ministries of Argentina were inquired.

A retrospective research design was developed, with triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods. We retrieved information for the years 2020–2021 through document review of official webpages, surveys, and interviews with decision-makers of the 25 Argentinian Ministries of Health. We analyzed the recommendations and reimbursement policies of seven health technologies.

In contradiction with WHO’s policies, ivermectine, inhaled ibuprofen, convalescent plasma and equine serum were widely recommended by most of Argentina’s health ministries outside a clinical trial context, with risks for patients and a huge opportunity cost.

Despite an important HTA institutional capacity, the impact of HTA organizations and their technical reports was limited. Health Ministries with institutionalized HTA units had more adherence to WHO recommendations, but the influence of different technical and political criteria was identified. Power relations within and outside the administration, the pharmaceutical industry and academics, the media, social pressure, the judicial and legislative powers, and the political context strongly influenced DM.

To assess the health technology assessment (HTA) process in Greece from its establishment in 2018 until 2023 in terms of timeliness and productivity.

Data were collected from the HTA Committee’s database and other publicly available sources. The overall study timeframe was divided into three periods: (i) July 2018–January 2020, (ii) January 2020–July 2021, and (iii) July 2021–February 2023.

During the study period, a total of 1,157 applications for medicinal products (MPs) (including 219 new active substances (NAS) and orphans) were submitted to the HTA Committee. The number of HTA recommendations increased from 60 (first period) to 641 (third period), while the backlog of MPs pending HTA and price negotiations decreased from 89 and 106 (January 2020) to 8 and 44 (February 2023), respectively. The median time intervals for all application types decreased significantly over time. In February 2023, the median time for clinical data assessment of NAS (excluding orphans) almost halved from 207 days in the first period to 114 days; median times for NAS and orphans from regulatory approval to HTA application were 420 and 457 days, and from HTA application to reimbursement 228 and 417 days, respectively.

The performance of the HTA process in Greece improved significantly over time, with increased MP appraisals, backlog reduction, and decreased timelines. Delays in reimbursement of NAS were mainly caused by the long gap between regulatory approval and HTA application. Overall, HTA review times in Greece are now on par with that of well-established European HTA systems.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an orthopedic intervention that generates substantial costs to national healthcare systems due to the number of interventions and the cost per intervention. We performed a cost comparison analysis in Austria and Switzerland.

Data from the national joint arthroplasty register in Switzerland and internal information from the national healthcare services in Austria and Switzerland were compared for patient demographics, interventional characteristics, and costs adjusted for inflation and purchasing power from 2015 to 2021.

The average age for primary THA in Austria was from 67.4 to 67.8 years with 55.9–57.2 percent female patients and from 68.5 to 69.3 years with 52.4–53.8 percent female patients in Switzerland. The annual incidence rate for primary THA rose from 210.28/100k to 216.6/100k in Austria and from 212/100k to 250/100k in Switzerland. After correction for inflation, costs were −1.91 percent lower in Austria in 2021 than in 2015 and −2.57 percent lower in Switzerland. After correction for purchasing power, costs were higher in Austria. The average hospital stay after THA in Austria was reduced by 20 percent (11.7 days/2015 vs. 9.4 days/2021) and 25 percent in Switzerland (8.4 days/2015 vs. 6.4 days/2021). Revision rate was 2.5–3.2 percent in Austria and 2.8–3.2 percent in Switzerland.

The patient population was comparable while patients undergoing primary THA in Austria stay longer in hospital and have relatively higher costs when adjusted for currency, purchasing power, and inflation. The use of standardized registers would be helpful to compare outcomes and costs.

Rare diseases (RD)-related policies have received significant attention due to the pressing medical requirements associated with these medical conditions and the substantial impact and treatments they may have on healthcare budgets. Nevertheless, policymakers frequently encounter difficulties in managing issues concerning resource allocation and prioritization within this population. Realizing the need to address such problems, this study was conducted to develop a framework based on the multicriteria decision analysis to improve RD reimbursement prioritization in Malaysia.

Primarily, a scoping review was performed to identify the methods and criteria used for the reimbursement of RD treatment, followed by strategic stakeholder engagement and a deliberative process on determining the best approach for the framework, including criteria identification, elicitation of weights, and a pilot assessment using the framework.

The findings reflected the priorities and perspectives of the stakeholders, which identified eight key criteria and their associated weights, namely effectiveness (19.6 percent), disease severity (15.6 percent), safety (14.2 percent), access to treatment (12.6 percent), economic consideration (12.2 percent), type of therapeutic treatment (11.5 percent), availability of alternatives (8.3 percent), and population group (6 percent).

In summary, the developed framework was well-accepted by the Rare Disease Committee, which will be applied as part of the committee deliberation for transparent and equitable decision making on fund allocation and reimbursement of orphan and RD treatment in Malaysia.

The management of rare diseases is rarely addressed among policymakers and public communities. It is hindered by the lack of information on its epidemiology and burden, especially from the perspective of patients and families with rare diseases. This study aims to understand the perceptions of rare disease patients and their families in the management of rare diseases in Malaysia.

A qualitative interview was used to explore the perceptions of patients and families regarding the management of rare diseases in Malaysia. In-depth interviews were conducted with the rare disease patients or their parents/guardians provided by three major rare disease advocacy groups, between 1 July and 15 September 2016. The interviews focused on two key areas: the challenges associated with rare disease and the issues related to accessing medication.

Out of the nineteen recruited participants, seventeen (89.5 percent) completed the interview sessions. The significance of awareness, knowledge, and support from others emerged as crucial for families and patients living with rare diseases. Despite facing delayed diagnosis and treatment, a majority of patients and parents expressed satisfaction with the advancements in rare disease management. Nevertheless, a prominent challenge revolves around access to enzyme replacement therapy for eligible patients.

This study emphasizes the importance of healthcare professionals understanding patient with rare diseases perceptions to tailor communication strategies, provide accurate information, and address concerns effectively. The message underscores the significance of collaboration between healthcare providers and patient support groups to deliver adequate health information, potentially enhancing patients’ understanding and their illness perceptions.

In France, decisions for pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products are based on appraisals performed by the National authority for health (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)). During the appraisal process, additional real-world evidence can be requested as “Post-Registration Studies” (PRS) when there are uncertainties in evidence that could be resolved by additional data collection. To facilitate PRS planning, a retrospective exploratory analysis was conducted to identify the characteristics of medicinal products associated with a PRS request.

This analysis encompassed all appraisals finalized between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021 and compared products for which the appraisal led to a PRS request with those that did not.

Six hundred positive opinions for reimbursement were identified, with a PRS request present in 17 percent (n = 103) of cases. The independent characteristics associated with a PRS request were a mild or moderate clinical benefit score, a major to moderate or minor clinical added value score, previous availability under an early access program, and certain therapeutic areas (neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology). These findings suggest two different profiles of PRS requests: (i) products for which there is uncertainty in the size of the clinical benefit and (ii) innovative products for which a substantial benefit is expected but uncertainties persist.

These results will assist health technology developers to better anticipate data generation to promptly address uncertainties identified by HAS. It may also help HAS and other assessment agencies to work together to improve postlaunch evidence generation according to the characteristics of the medicinal products.

Patients with hematological malignancies are likely to develop hypogammaglobulinemia. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is commonly given to prevent infections, but its overall costs and cost-effectiveness are unknown.

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig, administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), in adults with hematological malignancies.

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, and only two economic evaluations were identified; one cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IVIg versus no Ig, and another comparing IVIg with SCIg. The quality of the evidence was low. Compared to no treatment, Ig reduced hospitalization rates. One study reported no significant change in hospitalizations following a program to reduce IVIg use, and an observational study comparing IVIg with SCIg suggested that there were more hospitalizations with SCIg but lower overall costs per patient. The CUA comparing IVIg versus no Ig suggested that IVIg treatment was not cost-effective, and the other CUA comparing IVIg to SCIg found that home-based SCIg was more cost-effective than IVIg, but both studies had serious limitations.

Our review highlighted key gaps in the literature: the cost-effectiveness of Ig in patients with hematological malignancies is very uncertain. Despite increasing Ig use worldwide, there are limited data regarding the total direct and indirect costs of treatment, and the optimal use of Ig and downstream implications for healthcare resource use and costs remain unclear. Given the paucity of evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig treatment in this population, further health economic research is warranted.

While patient input to health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally been of a qualitative nature, there is increasing interest to integrate quantitative evidence from patient preference studies into HTA decision making. Preference data can be used to generate disease-specific health utility data. We generated a health utility score for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and consider its use within HTAs.

Based on qualitative research, six symptoms were identified as important to COPD patients: shortness of breath, exacerbations, chronic cough, mucus secretion, sleep disturbance, and urinary incontinence. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the random parameter logistic regression technique to estimate utility scores for all COPD health states. The relationship between patients’ COPD health utility scores, self-perceived COPD severity, and EQ-5D-3L utility scores was analyzed, with data stratified according to disease severity and comorbidity subgroups.

The COPD health utility score had face validity, with utility scores negatively correlated with patients’ self-perceived COPD severity. The correlation between the COPD health utility scores and EQ-5D-3L values was only moderate. While patient EQ-5D-3L scores were impacted by comorbidities, the COPD health utility score was less impacted by comorbid conditions.

Our COPD utility measure, derived from a DCE, provides a patient-centered health utility score and is more sensitive to the COPD health of the individual and less sensitive to other comorbidities. This disease-specific instrument should be considered alongside generic health-related quality of life instruments when valuing new COPD therapies in submissions to licensing and reimbursement agencies.

Our objective was to explore procedures and methods used at health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for assessing medical devices and the underlying views of HTA practitioners about appropriate methodology to identify challenges in adopting new methodologies for assessing devices. We focused on the role of normative commitments of HTA practitioners in the adoption of new methods.

An online survey, including questions on procedures, scoping, and assessments of medical devices, was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Interviews were conducted with survey respondents and HTA practitioners involved in assessments of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to gain an in-depth understanding of choices made and views about assessing medical devices. Survey and interview questions were inspired by the “values in doing assessments of health technologies” approach towards HTA, which states that HTA addresses value-laden questions and information.

The current practice of assessing medical devices at HTA agencies is predominantly based on procedures, methods, and epistemological principles developed for assessments of drugs. Both practical factors (available time, demands of decision-makers, existing legal frameworks, and HTA guidelines), as well as commitments of HTA practitioners to principles of evidence-based medicine, make the adoption of a new methodology difficult.

There is a broad recognition that assessments of medical devices may need changes in HTA methodology. In order to realize this, the HTA community may require both a discussion on the role, responsibility, and goals of HTA, and resulting changes in institutional context to adopt new methodologies.

Systematic priority setting is necessary for achieving high-quality healthcare using limited resources in low- and middle-income countries. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool that can be used for systematic priority setting. The objective of this study was to conduct a stakeholder and situational analysis of HTA in Zimbabwe.

We identified and analyzed stakeholders using the International Decision Support Initiative checklist. The identified stakeholders were invited to an HTA workshop convened at the University of Zimbabwe. We used an existing HTA situational analysis questionnaire to ask for participants’ views on the need, demand, and supply of HTA. A follow-up survey was done among representatives of stakeholder organizations that failed to attend the workshop. We reviewed two health policy documents relevant to the HTA. Qualitative data from the survey and document review were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Forty-eight organizations were identified as stakeholders for HTA in Zimbabwe. A total of 41 respondents from these stakeholder organizations participated in the survey. Respondents highlighted that the HTA was needed for transparent decision making. The demand for HTA-related evidence was high except for the health economic and ethics dimensions, perhaps reflecting a lack of awareness. Ministry of Health was listed as a major supplier of HTA data.

There is no formal HTA agency in the Zimbabwe healthcare system. Various institutions make decisions on prioritization, procurement, and coverage of health services. The activities undertaken by these organizations provide context for the institutionalization of HTA in Zimbabwe.

This study investigated how patient representatives have experienced their involvement in medicines appraisal and reimbursement processes with the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland (COHERE) and the Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board (PPB) and how authorities perceive the role of patient organizations’ input.

Semi-structured thematic individual and pair interviews were conducted in 2021 with representatives (n = 14) of patient organizations and government officials (n = 7) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Patient representatives expressed their appreciation for the PPB and the COHERE in creating consultation processes and systematic models that support involvement. However, there were many challenges: patient representatives were uncertain about how their submissions were utilized in official processes and whether their opinions had any significance in decision-making. Patients or patient organizations lack representation in appraisal and decision-making bodies, and patient representatives felt that decision-making lacked transparency. The importance of patient involvement was highlighted by the authorities, but they also emphasized that the patient organizations’ contributions were complementary to the other materials. Submissions regarding the medications used to treat rare diseases and those with limited research evidence were considered particularly valuable. However, the submissions may not necessarily have a direct impact on decisions.

The interviews provided relevant input for the development of involvement processes at the PPB and COHERE. The interviews confirmed the need for increased transparency in the medicines assessment, appraisal, and decision-making procedures in Finland.