Dataset Information

How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

What constitutes innovation in health technologies can be defined and measured in a number of ways and it has been widely researched and published about. However, while many countries mention it as a criterion for pricing or reimbursement of health technologies, countries differ widely in how they define and operationalise it.

Methods

We performed a literature review, using a snowballing search. In this paper, we explore how innovation has been defined in the literature in relation to health technology assessment. We also describe how a selection of countries (England, France, Italy, Spain and Japan) take account of innovation in their health technology assessment frameworks and explore the key methodologies that can capture it as a dimension of value in a new health technology. We propose a way of coming to, and incorporating into health technology assessment systems, a definition of innovation for health technologies that is independent of other dimensions of value that they already account for in their systems, such as clinical benefit. We use Spain as an illustrative example of how innovation might be operationalised as a criterion for decision making in health technology assessment.

Results

The countries analysed here can be divided into 2 groups with respect to how they define innovation. France, Japan and Italy use features such as severity, unmet need and therapeutic added value as indicators of the degree of innovation of a health technology, while England, Spain consider the degree of innovation as a separate and additional criterion from others. In the case of Spain, a notion of innovation might be constructed around concepts of `step-change', `convenience', `strength of evidence base' and `impact on future research & development'.

Conclusions

If innovation is to be used as operational criteria for adoption, pricing and reimbursement of health technologies, the concept must be clearly defined, and it ought to be independent from other value dimensions already captured in their health technology assessment systems.

SUBMITTER: Rejon-Parrilla JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8725438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResponsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.MethodsWe conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.ResultsOur findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).ConclusionBy confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing approximately 10 years from the beginning of Iran's national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, the present study aims to evaluate its success by examining the impact of HTA and identifying the determinant factors leading to the implementation of HTA report results.MethodsThe triangulation method was employed herein. HTA reports were initially identified and their impact and determinant factors were then examined from the perspectives of both researchers (by preparing a questionnaire according to the Payback model and sending it to HTA principle investigators) and stakeholders (semi-structured interviews held with each HTA stakeholder). Simultaneously, the quality of the HTA reports was examined with relevant critical appraisal checklists.ResultsThe impact of 19 equipment technologies and four pharmaceutical technologies were assessed in this study. Twenty researchers replied (response rate, 86.96%) to the questionnaire on the impact of HTA reports from the researcher's perspective. To assess the impact of HTA reports from the stakeholder's perspective, seven policy-makers were chosen and interviewed as the main target audience. The most common step taken to disseminate the results of the HTA projects was publication. Conducting the HTA had taught researchers and their colleagues' new skills and had facilitated the securing of research grants from other organisations. Most reports had used the systematic review method but the relevant details had been scarcely presented regarding outcomes, costs and analysis. The greatest impact of HTA reports on decision-making had been on policy-makers providing and allocating finances. Barriers in stewardship, identification and prioritisation of topics, performance and dissemination of HTA results were the main barriers of implementing HTAs.ConclusionsIn most aspects, the status of HTA impact reports need improvement. Thus far, the barriers and facilitators of the HTA programme in Iran have been investigated in other studies. These findings should be pooled to reach a solution that can be actively applied to the health system to improve the status quo of HTA in Iran.

Project description:BackgroundSensorineural hearing loss occurs as a result of damage to the hair cells in the cochlea, or to the auditory nerve. It negatively affects learning and development in children, and employment and economic attainment in adults. Current policy in Ontario is to provide unilateral cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, hearing with both ears as a result of bilateral cochlear implantation may offer added benefits.MethodsWe completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to bilateral cochlear implantation. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children from inception to March 2017. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective and analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children in Ontario for the next 5 years. Finally, we conducted interviews with adults who have sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants, and with parents of children with bilateral cochlear implants.ResultsWe included 24 publications (10 in adults, 14 in children) in the clinical evidence review. Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral cochlear implantation improved sound localization, speech perception in noise, and subjective benefits of hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (GRADE: moderate to high). Bilateral cochlear implantation also allowed for better language development and more vocalization in preverbal communication in children (GRADE: moderate). The safety profile was acceptable.Bilateral cochlear implantation was more expensive and more effective than unilateral cochlear implantation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $48,978/QALY in adults and between $27,427/QALY and $30,386/QALY in children. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the quality-of-life values used. We estimated that the net budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation for adults in Ontario would be between $510,000 and $780,000 per year for the next 5 years.Patients described the social and emotional effects of hearing loss, and the benefits and challenges of using cochlear implants.ConclusionsBased on evidence of moderate to high quality, we found that bilateral cochlear implantation improved hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Bilateral cochlear implantation was potentially cost-effective compared to unilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children. Patients with sensorineural hearing loss reported the positive effects of cochlear implants, and patients with unilateral cochlear implants generally expressed a desire for bilateral implants.