Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries

Anna-Maria Fontrier (), Erica Visintin and Panos Kanavos
Additional contact information
Anna-Maria Fontrier: Cowdray House, London School of Economics and Political Science
Erica Visintin: Cowdray House, London School of Economics and Political Science
Panos Kanavos: Cowdray House, London School of Economics and Political Science

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2022, vol. 6, issue 3, No 1, 315-328

Abstract: Abstract Health technology assessment (HTA) systems across countries vary in the way they are set up, according to their role and based on how funding decisions are reached. Our objective was to study the characteristics of these systems and their likely impact on the funding of technologies undergoing HTA. Based on a literature review, we created a conceptual framework that captures key operating features of HTA systems. We used this framework to map current HTA activities across 32 countries in the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia. Evidence was collected through a systematic search of competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Primary data collection through expert consultation validated our findings and further complemented the analysis. Sixty-three HTA bodies were identified. Most have a national scope (76%), are independent (73%), have an advisory role (52%), evaluate pharmaceuticals predominantly or exclusively (76%), assess health technologies based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness (73%) and involve various stakeholders as members of the HTA committee (94%) and/or through external consultation (76%). The majority of HTA outcomes are not legally binding (81%). Although all study countries implement HTA, the way it fits into decision-making, negotiation processes, and coverage and funding decisions differs significantly across countries. HTA is a dynamic and transformative process and there is a need for transparency to investigate whether evidence-based information influences coverage decisions.

JEL-codes: I I1 I10 I11 I18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00311-5 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00311-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00311-5

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().