In many countries, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations determine the economic value of new drugs and make recommendations regarding appropriate pricing and coverage in national health systems. In the US, recent policy proposals aimed at reducing drug costs would link drug prices to six countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. We reviewed these countries’ methods of HTA and guidance on price and coverage recommendations, analyzing methods and guidance documents for differences in (1) the methodologies HTA organizations use to conduct their evaluations and (2) considerations they use when making recommendations. We found important differences in the methods, interpretations of HTA findings, and condition-specific carve-outs that HTA organizations use to conduct evaluations and make recommendations. These variations have ethical implications because they influence the recommendations of HTA organizations, which affect access to the drug through national insurance and price negotiations with manufacturers. The differences in HTA approaches result from the distinct political, social, and cultural contexts of each organization and its value judgments. New cost-containment policies in the US should consider the ethical implications of the HTA reviews that they are considering relying on to negotiate drug prices and what values should be included in US pricing policy.
T.Mathes, E.Jacobs, J. C.Morfeld, and D.Pieper, “Methods of International Health Technology Assessment Agencies for Economic Evaluations — A Comparative Analysis,”BMC Health Services Research13 (2013):.
3.
I.Papanicolas, L. R.Woskie, and A. K.Jha, “Health Care Spending in the United States and Other High-Income Countries,”JAMA319, no. 10 (2018): 1024-1039.
4.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare Program; International Pricing Index Model for Medicare Part B Drugs § 83 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ed., GPO 2018); H.R.3 - Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, House of Representatives. H.R. 3, 116th Congress. (2019).
5.
Id. H.R.3.
6.
Id.
7.
K.Kieslich, J. B.Bump, O. F.Norheim, S.Tantivess, and P.Littlejohns, “Accounting for Technical, Ethical, and Political Factors in Priority Setting,”Health System Reform2, no. 1 (2016): 51-60.
8.
“Drugs for Rare Diseases: A Review of National and International Health Technology Assessment Agencies and Public Payers’ Decision-Making Processes,” in Environmental Scan (Ottawa, 2018).
9.
S.Clark and A.Weale, “Social Values in Health Priority Setting: A Conceptual Framework,”Journal of Health Organization and Management26, no. 3 (2012): 293-316.
10.
Department of Health, Australian Government, Procedure Guidance for Listing Medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 2019.
11.
J.Brandt, B.Shearer, and S. G.Morgan, “Prescription Drug Coverage in Canada: A Review of the Economic, Policy and Political Considerations for Universal Pharmacare,”Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice11 (2018): 28.
12.
Haute Autorité de Santé, Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation, 2012.
13.
IQWiG, General Methods, 2017.
14.
M.Hasegawa, S.Komoto, T.Shiroiwa, and T.Fukuda, “Formal Implementation of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Japan: A Unique Health Technology Assessment System,”Value Health23, no. 1 (2020): 43-51.
15.
NICE, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, 2013.
16.
“The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to Collaborate With the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Pharmacy Benefits Management Services Office,”news release, June, 272017.
17.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2016.
18.
S. G.Morgan, S.Vogler, and A. K.Wagner, “Payers’ Experiences with Confidential Pharmaceutical Price Discounts: A Survey of Public and Statutory Health Systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia,”Health Policy121, no. 4 (2017): 354-362.
19.
See IQWiG, supra note 13.
20.
T.Shiroiwa, T.Fukuda, S.Ikeda, T.Takura, and K.Moriwaki, “Development of an Official Guideline for the Economic Evaluation of Drugs/Medical Devices in Japan,”Value Health20, no. 3 (2017): 372-378.
21.
T.Shiroiwa, T.Fukuda, S.Ikeda, and T.Takura, 2017; “New Decision-Making Processes for the Pricing of Health Technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 Pilot Phase for the Introduction of Economic Evaluations,”Health Policy121 no. 8 (2017): 836-841, doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.001.
22.
See IQWiG, supra note 13.
23.
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; ICER, supra note 21.
24.
Currency conversion on January 15, 2020 and rounded to nearest 1,000.
25.
See NICE, supra note 15.
26.
CADTH, Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada (Appendix—Worked Example), in CADTH Methods and Guidelines, 2017.
27.
S.Wang, D.Gum, and T.Merlin, “Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed?”Value Health21, no. 8 (2018): 938-943.
28.
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; IQWiG, supra note 13.
29.
See CADTH supra note 25; ICER supra, note 21; IQWiG, supra note 13; Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17; Shirowa et al., supra note 21.
30.
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; IQWiG, supra note 13.
31.
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12.
32.
See CADTH, supra note 29; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.
33.
See Haute Autorité de Santé, supra note 12; NICE, supra note 15.
34.
See Hasegawa, supra note 14.
35.
ICER, Adapted Value Assessment Methods for High-Impact “Single and Short-Term Therapies” (SSTs), 2019.
CADTH, Recommendation Framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Programs: Guidance for CADTH’s Drug Expert Committees, 2016; see NICE, supra note 15; see Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.
45.
See NICE, supra note 15.
46.
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.
NICE, 2008, Social Value Judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance.
49.
H.Ogura, S.Komoto, T.Shiroiwa, and T.Fukuda, “Exploring the Application of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation in the Japanese National Health Insurance System,”International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care35, no. 6 (2019): 1-9.
50.
NICE, Interim Process and Methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme Updated to reflect 2017 changes, 2017.
51.
See ICER, supra note 21.
52.
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 17.
53.
The Department of Health, Australian Government, Procedure Guidance for Medicines Funded through the Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP), 2018.
54.
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Justification to the Resolution of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) on an Amendment of the Pharmaceuticals Directive (AM-RL): Annex XII – Resolutions on the Benefit Assessment of Medicinal Products with New Active Ingredients According to Section 35a SGB V – Asfotase Alfa. 2016.
55.
See Shirowa et al., supra note 21.
56.
NICE, PMG9 Addendum – Final Amendments to the NICE Technology Appraisal Methods Guide to Support the New Cancer Drugs Fund Arrangements, 2018.
57.
CADTH, Procedure and Submission Guidelines for the CADTH Common Drug Review, 2019.
58.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Inquiry into the Availability of New, Innovative and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia, Submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, 2015.
59.
See ICER, supra note 21.
60.
A.Torbica, G.Fornaro, R.Tarricone, and M. F.Drummond, “Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis,”Value Health23, no. 1 (2020): 17-24.
61.
See CADTH, supra note 21; Haute Autorité de Santé, Assessment of Ethical Aspects, 2013; NICE supra note 48.
62.
See CADTH, supra note 21; Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, supra note 47.
63.
M.Oremus, J. E.Tarride, N.Clayton, G.CanadianWillingness-to-Pay Study, and P.Raina, “Health Utility Scores in Alzheimer’s Disease: Differences Based on Calculation with American and Canadian Preference Weights,”Value Health17, no. 1 (2014): 77-83.
64.
AHRQ, U.S. Valuation of the EuroQol EQ-5 Health States: Research Initiative in Clinical Economics, 2012.
65.
K.Claxton, S.Martin, M.Soares, N.Rice, E.Spackman, S.Hinde, N.Devlin, P. C.Smith, and M.Sculpher, “Methods for the Estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Cost-Effectiveness Threshold,”Health Technology Assessment19, no. 14 (2015): 1-503, v-vi.
66.
See ICER, supra note 21.
67.
Id.
68.
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, supra note 58.
69.
A.Sarpatwari and A. S.Kesselheim, “Reforming the Orphan Drug Act for the 21st Century,”New England Journal of Medicine381, no. 2 (2019): 106-108.
70.
J. R. S.Lomas, “Incorporating Affordability Concerns Within Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment,”Value Health22, no. 8 (2019): 898-905.
71.
CADTH, Drugs for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection: Recommendations Report, in CADTH Therapeutic Review (2016).
72.
ICER, The Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Value of Simeprevir and Sofosbuvir in the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection (2014)
73.
A. D.Marshall, J. M.Pawlotsky, J. V.Lazarus, A.Aghemo, G. J.Dore, and J.Grebely, “The Removal of DAA Restrictions in Europe - One Step Closer to Eliminating HCV as a Major Public Health Threat,”Journal Hepatology69, no. 5 (2018): 1188-1196.
74.
See Sarpatwari and Kesselheim, supra note 68.
75.
See ICER, supra note 21; ICER, Modifications to the ICER Value Assessment Framework for Treatments for Ultra-Rare Diseases (2020).
76.
R. K.Nayak, J.Avorn, and A. S.Kesselheim, “Public Sector Financial Support for Late Stage Discovery of New Drugs in the United States: Cohort Study,”BMJ367 (2019): l5766-I5778.
77.
See NICE, supra note 15 at 5.4.1.
78.
J. E.Stahl, A. C.Tramontano, J. S.Swan, and B. J.Cohen, “Balancing Urgency, Age and Quality of Life in Organ Allocation Decisions — What Would You Do?: A Survey,”Journal of Medical Ethics34, no. 2 (2008): 109-115.
79.
J.Kreis and H.Schmidt, “Public Engagement in Health Technology Assessment and Coverage Decisions: A Study of Experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom,”Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law38, no. 1 (2013): 89-122.
ICER, A Guide to ICER’s Methods for Health Technology Assessment, 2018.
87.
D.Hailey, “The History of Health Technology Assessment in Australia,”International Journal of Technology Assessment Health Care25, Suppl. 1 (2009): 61-67.
