Health technology assessments (HTAs) have traditionally included clinical and cost-effectiveness evaluation of new health technologies (HTs). However, new HTs can generate important organizational impacts (OIs) that influence their overall value. OIs are currently not clearly identified and evaluated in HTA procedures and tools are limited. To address this issue, a comprehensive framework that allows to assess OIs of new HTs in HTAs is proposed.

A working and methodological group identified the Oslo Manual 2018, 4th edition, OECD/Eurostat, on the objectives and outcomes of commercial innovations as the basis for the OIs framework for HTAs. The Oslo Manual was translated to the healthcare sector and adapted to HTA procedures through a three-step process.

The framework is composed of three main parts. Part I tackles the context of the evaluation, Part II the categories of impacts and the specific impacts – in total, 16 OIs were identified – and Part III the stakeholders involved. The central part of the framework is Part II, and consists of three categories of impacts: (i) on the care process, (ii) on the stakeholders’ capabilities and skills, and (iii) on society or the community.

This framework provides a comprehensive and structured basis to document OIs of new HTs. It thus contributes to the extension of HTA evaluation criteria to other dimensions than clinical and economic aspects, that is, organizational aspects. Some of its intrinsic limitations and the questions they raise in the field for policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers are discussed.

Patient involvement is a core principle of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and we continually strive to improve patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTAs) of medicines. We iteratively surveyed and reviewed how patient involvement can be improved with patient organizations, patient experts, NICE HTA decision-making committees, and staff. We re-examined feedback that we collect on an ongoing basis, as well as one-off evaluations, to check how we can improve patient involvement.

Improvements ranged from support for and how we work with patient stakeholders to training the various stakeholders who take part in the HTA process to build up a comprehensive and evolving training package and stimulate a cycle of continually improving patient involvement.

We reviewed the outcomes and recommendations from the following larger projects:

• • Review of public involvement across NICE 2015;

• • Improving meaningful patient involvement in HTAs 2019;

• • Improving patient expert involvement in committee meetings 2019; and

• • The value of patient expert input 2022.

Feedback from monthly surveys of patient experts and organizations was also reviewed.

The results included recommendations about:

• • Changing the culture so that patient involvement at NICE is everybody’s business;

• • The key role of the committee chair in including patient experts;

• • The importance of committee culture and behavior in including and valuing patient input;

• • The need for a greater understanding of how NICE technical teams can best support and obtain the most meaningful evidence from patients; and

• • What additional support and training patient organizations and experts want from NICE’s public involvement team.

We concluded that not only patients need training, but also everybody included in the NICE medicines HTA process. Over time we have gradually added to our training portfolio for patient organizations and experts as well as NICE staff and independent committees. We now run patient involvement as part of the induction program for all staff, technical staff, medicines committee chairs, and NICE committees and lay members.

We also provide monthly training for patient organizations and patient experts.

The objective was to identify and describe the published guidance and current academic discourse of ethical issues and standards related to the use of Social Media Research for generating patient insights for the use by health technology assessment (HTA) or health policy decisions.

A scoping review of the literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase and identified 935 potential references published between January 2017 and June 2021. After title and abstract screening by three reviewers, 40 publications were included, the relevant information was extracted and data were collected in a mind map, which was then used to structure the output of the review.

Social Media Research may reveal new insights of relevance to HTA or health policies into patient needs, patient experiences, or patient behaviors. However, the research approaches, methods, data use, interpretation, and communication may expose those who post the data in social media channels to risks and potential harms relating to privacy, anonymity/confidentiality, authenticity, context, and rapidly changing technologies.

An actively engaged approach to ensuring ethical innocuousness is recommended that carefully follows best practices throughout planning, conduct, and communication of the research. Throughout the process and as a follow-up, there should be a discourse with the ethical experts to maximally protect the current and future users of social media, to support their trust in the research, and to advance the knowledge in parallel to the advancement of the media themselves, the technologies, and the research tools.

The importance of patient centricity in healthcare decision making has been recognized and advocated for decades. However, approaches for including the patient perspective are diverse, and progress varies among countries. Some reimbursement bodies acknowledge the importance of patient preferences in health technology assessment (HTA) and funding decision processes. However, patients’ perspectives are not yet systematically and transparently included in value assessment frameworks globally, and even less so in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. This systematic review aimed to investigate how patients’ perspectives are used to inform pricing and reimbursement decisions in the APAC region.

A systematic review is ongoing that utilized a search of 12 databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, to identify publications on the consideration of patient perspectives in health policy decision-making published to November 2022. Conference abstracts published in the last five years from ISPOR and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) were screened, along with gray literature and government websites from Australia, China, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. Publications were included if the impact of either one or more of the following on HTA decision-making was assessed: active participation of patients or patient advocacy groups; type, extent, and evolution of patient-reported outcomes; health-related quality of life or quality of life tools; and themes where the impact of patients’ perspectives on value assessment was the primary outcome. Countries were characterized into archetypes based on similarities or differences in the weight and value assigned to patient perspectives in decision-making.

A total of 6,438 retrieved citations will undergo the systematic review process. Additionally, 758 conference abstracts from ISPOR, 1,312 from HTAi conferences and 73 records from gray literature will be screened.

The results of the systematic review will be consolidated into country archetypes, examples, and learnings. Gaps and opportunities will also be identified.

The research will provide recommendations to increase shared decision-making and support the development of decision-making frameworks that systematically incorporate patients’ perspectives in value assessment across APAC countries.

The mission of the Department of Health (DoH) of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates is to provide its population with a healthy life and world leading preventive and curative services. While the DoH has regulations in place to grant market approval to new health technologies, there is a need to develop a clear overall framework for reimbursement and disinvestment decisions. Establishing a structured health technology assessment (HTA) framework is critical for informing decisions on health technologies that offer value for money, with the aim of improving equitable access to health care, financial risk protection, and, ultimately, better health outcomes.

During 2022, the DoH collaborated with the Radboud University Medical Center to explore the feasibility of applying an evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) HTA approach through workshops and interviews involving all stakeholders in the ecosystem, such as policy makers, principal investigators, providers, patients and public groups, product manufacturers, payers, and purchasers. A situational analysis was conducted to collect stakeholders’ views and build EDPs. Based on this analysis, a structured roadmap was developed.

The comprehensive five-year roadmap to implement a holistic HTA framework in Abu Dhabi consisted of five major elements, starting with the establishment of an appropriate HTA policy framework as a foundation. Abu Dhabi should firmly establish its HTA structure and program (in one to two years), and at the same time invest in developing and retaining HTA training capacity so that over time (within three to five years) the country can build up its own expertise to sustain the program. This needs to be accompanied by continuous awareness raising among all relevant stakeholders.

This roadmap is the first and most important step toward implementing a holistic HTA framework in Abu Dhabi. Technical work needs to be complemented by continuously raising awareness and involving all relevant stakeholders. Looking at the initial results and international benchmarks, HTA will significantly contribute to achieving a sustainable, high quality healthcare system.

The aim of this initiative was to examine collaboratively, in a multi-stakeholder team (health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners with patient involvement expertise, health technology industry, patient advocates, health policy experts, patient engagement experts), whether evidence generated through social media research (SMR) fills current information gaps relating to insights on specific aspects of patient experiences, preferences, or patient needs and delivers additional value to HTA.

The framing of the project was done in a co-creative, deliberative multi-stakeholder process. Challenge and refinement happened through discussions with 25 independent stakeholders from HTA bodies, industry, academia, and patient advocacy. For critical themes identified during the framing phase, scoping literature reviews were performed including the state of methods and examples for the use of SMR in HTA.

The framing and stakeholder discussions specified a set of expectations and requirements, and the scoping reviews revealed the current state of methods and usage of SMR in health-policy decision making.

The project concluded that SMR can contribute new, relevant evidence to HTA. It is however recommended to evolve the science through defining best practices when planning, conducting, and using SMR and to conduct multi-stakeholder pilot SMR projects to address questions relevant to current HTAs and to validate and improve the proposed practices.

Clinicians are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence (AI) generated technologies for support in diagnosis, therapeutic decision-making, and prediction. Despite the increased focus on AI in health, an agreed HTA model for AI technologies, including consensus on new domains and topics to be assessed, is lacking.

A Delphi survey was sent to a multidisciplinary expert panel asking about the importance of including the nine domains and associated topics presented in the EUnetHTA Core Model, as well as 20 additional topics identified through literature reviews, when assessing AI-supported health technologies. The Delphi survey was repeated twice among the same panelists and a nine-point Likert scale was used to identify the perceived relevance of each domain and topic.

The survey was sent to 87 various experts, with a total 47 of experts completing both Delphi rounds. The majority of panelists was knowledgeable of HTA (80%), familiar with the EUnetHTA Core Model (61%), and had adequate or high-level knowledge of AI (65%). The EUnetHTA domains most often indicated as “critical to include” were clinical effectiveness (82%), ethical aspects (81%), and cost effectiveness (77%), whereas organizational (59%) and social aspects (63%) were less often perceived as critical to assess. For the additional 20 topics identified through literature reviews, bias in data, accuracy in the AI model, appropriateness, and trustworthiness emerged as some of the new topics deemed critical to include in HTAs (all above 85%), whereas there was a lack of agreement on the relevance of including environmental (51%) and social sustainability (55%).

The study investigated in detail which issues should be included in an AI HTA core model. Current models need some adjustment and revision. At the same time, it is essential to open the discussion on including new domains and topics.

Horizon scanning for health technology appraisal (HTA) in England involves topic notification to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) via technology briefings. This activity is undertaken by the Innovation Observatory with submission timelines designed to ensure that HTA decisions align with regulatory approval time. In this paper, we aimed to track and assess the progression and current status of the topics notified for HTA and provide a descriptive analysis of these topics.

Technology briefings were mapped from submission to NICE technology appraisal/highly specialized technologies recommendations from April 2017 until October 2021. This was done using a combination of searches on Google and NICE website, searching a downloadable spreadsheet containing NICE topic selection decisions, and querying NICE Topic Selection team. Analysis was undertaken regarding type of indications and interventions of submitted topics and published guidance.

Six-hundred and ninety-three topics entered the NICE scoping process, of which 94 percent were prioritized. As of November 2021, approximately 39 percent of prioritized topics were in scoping/in progress, 31 percent were proposed/completed, 20 percent were suspended/terminated, and 4 percent were referred back to Innovation Observatory (IO) for further monitoring.

Our work demonstrates that horizon scanning for HTA is a complex and time-intensive process. Timelines and progress through HTA is challenging due to the growing number of innovative medicines, significant uncertainties, and limited transparency in clinical development and regulatory pathways. A better understanding of clinical trials and regulatory requirements may help eliminate some of this uncertainty and improve timely HTA.

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Council in the Philippines carried out its process tracks while the implementing guidelines were being finalized in 2020, due to the urgent need to respond to COVID-19. Two years later, as mandated by the Universal Healthcare (UHC) law, we opened the nominations for the HTA Council’s topic priority list, which will be assessed to inform government financing decisions.

We adopted the former Philippine National Formulary System (PNFS) but set the prioritization criteria according to the decision framework stipulated by the UHC law and allowed industry submissions. We streamlined dossier completion for topics with numerous proponents, supplemented dossier deficiencies, and adjusted the timelines of crucial steps for better reach, while accounting for possible setbacks during the time periods. We satisfied the prioritization criteria using a Delphi technique at the HTA Council subcommittee and Core Committee levels in conjunction with consultations with the Department of Health and the national payer. We also shared evidence base and topic prioritization criteria scores with stakeholders during the public consultation.

In the pilot implementation, we processed a total of 140 nominations (88 complete submissions) and released the priority list in five months. After processing 31 appeals from all key stakeholder groups, the 2022 priority list covered 31 assessments based on topics from the Department of Health, the national payer, industry, hospitals, and medical societies. Although we found gaps in the set timelines, inadequacy in the prioritization criteria parameters, and the need to increase exposure of the public to the process, we were able to accommodate all stakeholder concerns and maintain flexibility in the process.

We need to update our HTA process guidelines, accept joint dossier submissions, and review our topic prioritization process. The changing health system landscape and transitioning of national health priorities require coordination with the Philippine Food and Drug Administration for horizon scanning, early HTA, and managed entry agreements. Finally, there is a need to create special pathways for rare disease and innovative technologies.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is an area that remains less implemented in low- and lower middle-income countries. The aim of the study is to understand the perceptions of stakeholders in Uganda toward HTA and its role in decision making, in order to inform its potential implementation in the country.

The study takes a cross-sectional mixed methods approach, utilizing an adapted version of the International Decision Support Initiative questionnaire with both semi-structured and open-ended questions. We interviewed thirty key informants from different stakeholder institutions in Uganda that support policy and decision making in the health sector.

All participants perceived HTA as an important tool for decision making. Allocative efficiency was regarded as the most important use of HTA receiving the highest average score (8.8 out of 10), followed by quality of healthcare (7.8/10), transparency (7.6/10), budget control (7.5/10), and equity (6.5/10). There was concern that some of the uses of HTA may not be achieved in reality if there was political interference during the HTA process. The study participants identified development partners as the most likely potential users of HTA (66.7 percent of participants), followed by Ministry of Health (43.3 percent).

Interviewed stakeholders in Uganda viewed the role of HTA positively, suggesting that there exists a promising environment for the establishment and operationalization of HTA as a tool for decision making within the health sector. However, sustainable development and application of HTA in Uganda will require adequate capacity both to undertake HTAs and to support their use and uptake.

Patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD). Early detection of CKD through microalbuminuria screening, followed by treatment, delays the progression of CKD. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening of microalbuminuria among normotensive type 2 diabetes mellitus patients aged >40 years compared with no screening scenario using a decision tree combined with the Markov model.

We considered two scenarios: Scenario I – dipstick microalbuminuria followed by spot-urine albumin–creatinine ratio (ACR) and serum creatinine in sequence; Scenario II – spot urine ACR plus serum creatinine. A mathematical cohort of the target population was simulated over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Data for the model were obtained from secondary resources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for screening scenarios compared to nonscreening scenario, along with sensitivity analyses.

The discounted ICER per quality-adjusted life years gained for annual microalbuminuria screening in the normotensive diabetic population in India were ₹ 24,114 (US$ 308) and ₹ 13,790 (US$ 176) for scenarios I and II, respectively. Annual screening by scenarios I and II resulted in a reduction of 180 and 193 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) cases per 100,000 population, respectively, resulting in a cost saving of ₹ 12.3 and 13.3 Crore spent on ESRD management over 10 years. Both scenarios were also cost-effective even at the screening frequencies of 5 and 10 yearly.

Microalbuminuria screening was cost-effective at the threshold of one-time GDP per capita in India.

Given time and resource constraints, health technology assessments (HTAs) should avoid duplicating prior HTAs. This abstract describes the experience of the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) with adapting and building on published HTAs of medical technologies to support efficient decision-making.

Upon defining the scope of an evaluation topic, searches were performed on reference agency websites and HTA networks, such as the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, to identify relevant published HTAs. Identified reports were included for evidence synthesis if the inclusion criteria were met. If multiple relevant HTAs were identified, the most recent or comprehensive HTA identified was used as the foundational evidence base and supplemented by additional primary or secondary literature as needed. When deemed necessary, de novo economic models were developed. Where available, reimbursement decisions or recommendations from published HTAs and their applicability to Singapore’s context were also considered. Following ACE’s evaluations, the Ministry of Health Medical Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC) made subsidy recommendations.

To date, ACE has completed 54 HTA evaluations of medical technologies, 47 (87%) of which incorporated published HTA evidence. Although some MTAC recommendations were aligned with published HTAs, discrepancies were observed that were mainly attributed to evolution of the technology or evidence since publication of HTAs; different local clinical needs or management algorithms; and different local costs of the intervention and comparator. Key challenges in adapting published HTAs included differences in the target population and intervention or comparator in published HTAs, mixed recommendations from published HTAs, and non-English language reports, which may underscore the need to adapt published HTAs to Singapore’s context. To overcome some of these challenges, close consultation with stakeholders is critical to understand local clinical need and care pathways and to gather key information such as costs.

Published HTAs, when used as an evidence base and supplemented by evidence updates and local contextualization, allow for efficient and robust HTA to support decision-making.

Pursuant to the Universal Health Care Act of 2019, the Health Technology Assessment Council (HTAC) in the Philippines was mandated to make recommendations for government financing of health technologies, including medical devices. The development of a Philippine Essential Medical Device List (PEMDL) will serve as a guide for the procurement of medical devices and supplies in government health facilities and as the basis for creating a price reference index.

The HTAC and a team of medical device experts (the Expert Advisory Committee) developed a streamlined pathway and guidelines using a Delphi technique with the Philippine Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health (DOH) to determine the necessary criteria for fast tracking the inclusion of medical devices. The pathway was also revised throughout a pilot processing of commonly procured medical devices (e.g., consumables) that were either already covered by existing national health insurance packages or funded by DOH programs, among others.

The final pathway consisted of validating whether the device was already approved by the Philippine FDA and whether it was already part of standard of care. Similar to the usual HTA nomination requirement, the local FDA approval attested to the safety and quality of the device. Meanwhile, the inclusion of the device in the standard of care guaranteed that it was essential in the healthcare setting. This can be written in the World Health Organization technical documents and databases such as the Medical Devices Information System, health facility listing requirements, or locally adopted clinical practice guidelines. The initial PEMDL for release contained a total of 307 medical devices across 16 categories.

Unlike the mandate for the Philippine National Formulary, government health facilities are not yet required to base their procurement on the PEMDL because the list is still in its infancy. Moving forward, the list will include big ticket items and will be updated through consultations with specialty centers and hospitals.

Health technology assessment (HTA) traditionally informs decision making for single health technologies, which could lead to ill-informed decisions, suboptimal care, and system inefficiencies. We explored opportunities for conceptualizing the decision space in HTA as a disease management question versus an intervention management question.

Semistructured interviews were conducted between April 2022 and October 2022 with purposefully selected individuals from national and provincial HTA agencies and related organizations in Canada. We conducted manual line by line coding of data informed by our interview guide and sensitizing concepts from the literature. One author coded the data, and findings were independently verified by a second author who coded a subset of transcripts

Twenty-four invitations were distributed, and eighteen individuals agreed to participate. A disease management approach to HTA was differentiated from traditional approaches as being disease-based, multi-interventional, and dynamic. There was general support for an explicit care pathway approach to HTA by informing discussions around patient choice and suboptimal care, creating a space where decision makers can collaborate on shared objectives, and in setting up a platform for open dialogue about managing high-cost and high-severity diseases. There are opportunities for a care pathway approach to be implemented that build on the strengths of the existing HTA system in Canada.

A disease management approach may enhance the impact of HTA by supporting dynamic decision making that could better inform a proactive, resilient, and sustainable healthcare system in Canada.

Our objective was to conceptualize and assess the potential value of a disease management approach to health technology assessment (HTA) in Canada.

We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews between April 2022 and October 2022 to elicit informant views on potential opportunities for re-conceptualizing the decision-problem in HTA as a disease management problem versus a technology management problem. Participants were purposefully sampled from national and provincial HTA agencies and related organizations in Canada to achieve representation across the disease pathway including prevention, screening, and treatment, and the decision-making pathway including HTA organizations, expert committee members, and decision-makers. Data were analyzed using thematic organizations (based on the interview guide) and manual line by line coding of the data. Ethics approval was received from the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto.

Three key features of a disease management approach to HTA (i.e., disease-based, multi-interventional, and dynamic) emerged from informants that differed from traditional HTA processes in Canada. The concept was generally not perceived to be a new idea – some informants indicating that it was implicit in the HTA analysis framework. There was general support for an explicit disease management approach to HTA if the impact of the approach could be demonstrated, if the assessment could be completed within an appropriate time frame, and if the assessment could include the equity, ethical and implementation domains of HTA. Informants indicated that the reconceptualization of HTA could lead to effective and efficient decision-making throughout a technology’s lifecycle, help breakdown system silos, and offer a platform for greater consideration of non-drug alternatives and upstream interventions. The impact of this approach was anticipated to contribute to a proactive health system that could improve population health, enhance the patient experience, and ensure appropriate stewardship of health care resources.

A disease management approach to HTA has international relevance as an approach that could promote integrated, proactive, sustainable, and resilient health systems.

This article presents the mapping of horizons scanning systems (HSS) for medical devices, conducted by the Medical Devices Working Group of the International Horizon Scanning Initiative (IHSI MDWG). It provides an overview of the identified HSS, highlights similarities and differences between the systems, and lessons learned.

Potentially relevant HSS were identified through literature searches, scan of an overview of EuroScan members, and input from the IHSI MDWG members. Structured information was collected from organizations that confirmed having an HSS for medical devices.

Sixteen initiatives could be identified, of which 11 are currently ongoing. The purposes of the HSS range from raising awareness of trends and new developments to managing informed decisions on innovative health services in hospitals. The time-horizon is most often 3 years up to a few months before market entry. Three models of identification of new technologies crystallized: a reactive (stakeholders outside HSS inform), a pro-active (actively searching multifold sources), and a hybrid model. Prioritization is often conducted by separate committees via scoring or debate. The outputs focus either on in-depth information of single technologies or on a class of technologies or on technologies in specific disease areas.

The identified HSS share the common experience that horizon scanning (HS) for medical devices is a resource-intensive exercise that requires a dedicated and skilled team. Insights into the identified HSS and their experiences will be used in the continued work of the IHSI MDWG on its proposal for an IHSI HSS for medical devices.

Assessments self-administered via smart phone-based apps can gather patient wellness data; however, data regarding app utilization in clinical trials are limited. This study evaluated engagement with a self-administered wellness app as a supplemental tool to assess quality-of-life (QoL) in study BGB-3111-215 (NCT04116437), which included patients with B-cell malignancies treated daily with oral zanubrutinib.

This exploratory analysis evaluated the feasibility of using a voluntary device-based, self-administered activity and QoL questionnaire app (Medable, California, USA) in clinical trial patients. Feasibility was measured by rates of consent, utilization, and compliance. Consent was assessed by the percentage of patients who agreed to use the app. Utilization was assessed by the percentage of patients who engaged with the app. Compliance was assessed by actual versus scheduled engagements. The app also included passive activity tracking and a six-minute walk test.

As of 1 September 2022, 78 patients had enrolled in the study (median age 71 years) and 20 had consented to participate (26% consent rate). Eleven patients (median age 65 years) engaged with the app at least once (14% utilization rate; n=11 for the questionnaire; n=7 for the walk test). Engagement occurred a median two times (range 1 to 17) for the questionnaire and a median seven times (range 1 to 15) for the walk test. Four patients engaged with the questionnaire and six patients engaged in the walk test beyond week 12. Passive activity was collected for eight patients beyond week 12. Among patients who engaged with the QoL questionnaire and walk test, compliance rates were 18 and 21 percent, respectively.

This initial study showed that a subset of patients was willing to participate in the self-administered QoL questionnaire and activity tracker. Further comparison of app results and clinical trial findings are ongoing to explore factors affecting utilization and compliance rates.

Digital health care is a rapidly growing and increasingly diverse area of medicine and social care. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world are engaging with digital health technologies and developing methods for appropriately assessing their value. Given our experience in HTA for pharmaceuticals and how methodologies must differ when assessing medical devices and diagnostics, we must be proactive in rapidly developing useful methods for assessing a variety of digital health technologies.

We will first present the results of two completed HTAs from the UK and contrast their methods and results, while looking at the UK approach to assessing digital health care in general. Next, we will present preliminary results from an ongoing consensus conference study of HTA’s for integrated digital technologies. This study will use a modified Delphi methodology to develop statements for discussion at a consensus conference. The primary research question is “how digital technologies can help build resilient healthcare systems and how HTAs can assess their value”.

An HTA conducted in the UK of an artificial intelligence-enabled ambulatory electrocardiogram device resulted in a recommendation for further real-world evidence generation. Another HTA of a digital therapeutic app for insomnia, which was also conducted in the UK, resulted in a positive recommendation but the process was lengthy and needed to be flexible. The preliminary results of an upcoming consensus conference study will also be presented. The consensus panel will consist of a range of stakeholders from digital experts, HTA practitioners, clinicians, health economists, industry representatives, and policy makers.

Digital technology is now a broad field with a wide range of very different technologies included in its definition. Questions remain as to whether digital technologies should be assessed using a traditional pharma-based framework for HTA, a MedTech model, or something else entirely. Given our past experience of developing flexible methods for HTA, we have an opportunity to develop useful recommendations and best practices from the ground up.