Health systems worldwide are challenged by the need to prioritize and fund rapidly evolving health technologies. The methodology of health technology assessment (HTA) incorporates benefits, costs, and social implications, supporting prioritization of public coverage regarding national health policy. The aim of this study is to identify, analyze, and compare key considerations in the adoption of medical technologies reflecting the national health policies in Israel and England. All Israeli pharmaceuticals approved for public funding during 2020–2022 (287) were analyzed and compared with England recommendations concerned clinical effectiveness, economic considerations, and social values. Both health systems demonstrated 49% agreement regarding approval of funding recommendations policy, while in oncology, diabetes, and hematology, this reached 60%–65%. In both health systems, adoption was determined by clinical impact considering the disease burden and regarding the added value of the innovative technology compared with existing treatments, followed by social considerations. Budget considerations prevail in England. This relatively high resemblance in adoption decisions between England and Israel may emerge from similar principles of accountability for public coverage of medical care. In addition, it may also be driven by the forefront of innovative technological research worldwide and global interest. Nevertheless, economic considerations differ between the 2 health systems, introducing policy discrepancies or tactical diversity.
OortwijnW, MathijssenJ, BantaD. The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy, 2010; 95(2–3):174–184; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.12.008
2.
GolanO, HansenP, KaplanG, TalO. Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy, 2011; 102(2–3):126–135; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.012
3.
BantaD, JonssonE, ChildsP. History of the international societies in health technology assessment: International society for technology assessment in health care and health technology assessment international. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2009; 25(Suppl 1):19–23; doi: 10.1017/S0266462309090369
4.
BantaHD. Perspective: Some conclusions from my life in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2018; 34(2):131–133; doi: 10.1017/S0266462318000107
5.
OortwijnW, BroosP, VondelingH, et al.Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2013; 29(4):424–434; doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000469
6.
TalO, BoochM, Bar-YehudaS. Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: Data from a multidisciplinary survey. Health Res Policy Sys, 2019; 17(1):72; doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0469-3
7.
HenshallC, OortwijnW, StevensA, et al.Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1997; 13(2):144–185; doi: 10.1017/s0266462300010357
8.
BarneaR, Tur-SinaiA, Levtzion-KorachO, et al.Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust – A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital. Health Expect, 2022; 25(5):2340–2354; doi: 10.1111/hex.13487
9.
NicodE, MaynouL, VisintinE, CairnsJ. Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study. Health Econ Policy Law, 2020; 15(3):386–402; doi: 10.1017/S1744133119000239
10.
HaileyD. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J, 2006; 47(3):187–192; quiz 193.
11.
BantaHD, de WitGA. Public health services and cost-effectiveness analysis. Annu Rev Public Health, 2008; 29:383–397; doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090808
12.
MobinizadehM, RaeissiP, NasiripourAA, et al.The health systems’ priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2016; 30:329.
13.
YarivH. The case of pharmacist prescribing policy in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res, 2015; 4:49; doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0045-4
14.
NorheimOF, BaltussenR, JohriM, et al.Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): The inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2014; 12:18; doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-18
15.
KristensenFB. Health technology assessment in Europe. Scand J Public Health, 2009; 37(4):335–339; doi: 10.1177/1403494809105860
16.
SimoensS. What is the value for money of medicines? A registry study. J Clin Pharm Therap, 2012; 37(2):182–186; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2011.01277.x
17.
Ben-AharonO, SergienkoR, IskrovG, GreenbergD. Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: Results from a contingent valuation study in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res, 2024; 13(1):9; doi: 10.1186/s13584-024-00594-z
18.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/ [Accessed November 18, 2025].
19.
BrittainHK, ScottR, ThomasE. The rise of the genome and personalized medicine. Clin Med (Lond), 2017; 17(6):545–551; doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-6-545
20.
HogervorstMA, PonténJ, VremanRA, et al.Real world data in health technology assessment of complex health technologies. Front Pharmacol, 2022; 13:837302; doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.837302
21.
KovácsZ, KalóR, Daubner-BendesK, et al.Implementation, of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries. Health Econ, 2022; 31(Suppl 1):195–206; doi: 10.1002/hec.4504
22.
MyungJE, TanakaY, ChoiH, et al.Coverage with evidence development programs for medical technologies in Asia-Pacific regions: A case study of Japan and South Korea. Jma J, 2021; 4(4):311–320; doi: 10.31662/jmaj.2021-0011
GolanO, HansenP. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res, 2012; 1(1):44; doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-44
25.
KaplanG, ShaharY, TalO. Supplementary health insurance from the consumer point of view: Are Israelis consumers doing an informed rational choice when purchasing supplementary health insurance? Health Policy, 2017; 121(6):708–714; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.019
26.
ClarfieldAM, ManorO, NunGB, et al.Israeli, health and health care in Israel: An introduction. Lancet, 2017; 389(10088):2503–2513; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30636-0
27.
AssorY, GreenbergD. Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: Lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study. BMC Health Serv Res, 2022; 22(1):737; doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07992-6
28.
GuttmanN, ShalevC, KaplanG, et al.What should be given a priority – Costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect, 2008; 11(2):177–188; doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00485.x
29.
SaxP. The shaping of pharmaceutical governance: The Israeli case. Isr J Health Policy Res, 2014; 3:16; doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-3-16
30.
ShmueliA, GolanO, PaolucciF, et al.Efficiency and equity considerations in the preferences of health policy-makers in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res, 2017; 6(1):18; doi: 10.1186/s13584-017-0142-7
31.
ShmueliA. Do the equity-efficiency preferences of the Israeli basket committee match those of Israeli health policy makers? Isr J Health Policy Res, 2017; 6:20; doi: 10.1186/s13584-017-0145-4
32.
DrummondM, BantaD. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2009; 25(Suppl 1):178–181; doi: 10.1017/S0266462309090618
33.
GarbiM. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines development principles and processes. Heart, 2021; 107(12):949–953; doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318661
34.
NicodE, KanavosP. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy, 2012; 108(2–3):167–177; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012
35.
CasilliG, LidonniciC, JommiM, et al.Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines? Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2023; 39(1):e54; doi: 10.1017/S026646232300048X
36.
ToumiM, RémuzatC. Value added medicines: What value repurposed medicines might bring to society? J Mark Access Health Policy, 2017; 5(1):1264717; doi: 10.1080/20016689.2017.1264717
37.
GaletsiP, KatsaliakiK. Big data analytics in health: An overview and bibliometric study of research activity. Health Info Libr J, 2020; 37(1):5–25; doi: 10.1111/hir.12286
38.
PrasadM, LambeUP, BrarB, et al.Nanotherapeutics: An insight into healthcare and multi-dimensional applications in medical sector of the modern world. Biomed Pharmacother, 2018; 97:1521–1537; doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.11.026
39.
GBD 2019 Cancer Risk Factors Collaborators. The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2022; 400(10352):563–591; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01438-6
40.
ChamberlainC, CollinSM, StephensP, et al.Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales. Br J Cancer, 2014; 111(9):1693–1702; doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.86
41.
HussainM. Primordial prevention: The missing link in neurological care. J Family Med Prim Care, 2021; 10(1):31–34; doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1806_20
42.
International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes is “a pandemic of unprecedented magnitude” now affecting one in 10 adults worldwide. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2021; 181:109133; doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109133
43.
OECD data extracted on 15 Oct. 2023. Dataset: Mortality, morbidity and welfare cost from exposure to environment-related risks. 2019.
44.
The Lancet Oncology. The NHS: Failing to deliver on Beveridge’s promise? Lancet Oncol, 2018; 19(1):1; doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30918-X
45.
CharltonV. The normative grounds for NICE decision-making: A narrative cross-disciplinary review of empirical studies. Health Econ Policy Law, 2022; 17(4):444–470; doi: 10.1017/S1744133122000032
46.
HeathA, PechlivanoglouP. Prioritizing research in an era of personalized medicine: The potential value of unexplained heterogeneity. Med Decis Making, 2022; 42(5):649–660; doi: 10.1177/0272989X211072858
47.
Coronini-CronbergS, BixbyH, LavertyAA, et al.English National Health Service’s savings plan may have helped reduce the use of three ‘low-value’ procedures. Health Aff (Millwood), 2015; 34(3):381–389; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0773
48.
OECD data extracted in Oct. 2023, Dataset: Comparative performance of national science and innovation systems. 2025.
49.
OECD data extracted in Jan. 2023 Dataset: Historical population 2021.
50.
MJ PrinceF, WuY, GuoY, et al.; OECD data extracted in Jan. 2023 Dataset: Historical population 2021. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet, 2015; 385(9967):549–562; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61347-7
51.
NicodE, KanavosP. Scientific and social value judgment for orphan drugs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2016; 32(4):218–232; doi: 10.1017/S0266462316000416
52.
ZhouN, JiH, LiZ, et al.Influencing factors of health technology assessment to orphan drugs: Empirical evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia. Front Public Health, 2022; 10:861067; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.861067
53.
XoxiE, Di BidinoR, LeoneS, et al.Value assessment of medicinal products by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and French National Authority for Health (HAS): Similarities and discrepancies. Front Med Technol, 2022; 4:917151; doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.917151
54.
ShaniS, SiebzehnerMI, LuxenburgO, et al.Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level – The Israeli experience. Health Policy, 2000; 54(3):169–185; doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00109-3
55.
DixonJ, SmithP, GravelleH, et al.A person based formula for allocating commissioning funds to general practices in England: Development of a statistical model. Bmj, 2011; 343:d6608; doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6608
56.
MartinS, RiceN, SmithPC. Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data. J Health Econ, 2008; 27(4):826–842; doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.12.002
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
