Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

Nicod, Elena (2017) Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. European Journal of Health Economics, 18 (6). pp. 715-730. ISSN 1618-7598

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (947kB) | Preview
Identification Number: 10.1007/s10198-016-0823-0

Abstract

Purpose Health technology assessment (HTA) coverage recommendations differ across countries for the same drugs. Unlike previous studies, this study adopts a mixed methods research design to investigate, in a systematic manner, these differences. Methods HTA recommendations for ten orphan drugs appraised in England (NICE), Scotland (SMC), Sweden (TLV) and France (HAS) (N = 35) were compared using a validated methodological framework that breaks down these complex decision processes into stages facilitating their understanding, analysis and comparison, namely: (1) the clinical/cost-effectiveness evidence, (2) its interpretation (e.g. part of the deliberative process) and (3) influence on the final decision. This allowed qualitative and quantitative identification of the criteria driving recommendations and highlighted cross-country differences. Results Six out of ten drugs received diverging HTA recommendations. Reasons for cross-country differences included heterogeneity in the evidence appraised, in the interpretation of the same evidence, and in the different ways of dealing with the same uncertainty. These may have been influenced by agency-specific evidentiary, risk and value preferences, or stakeholder input. “Other considerations” (e.g. severity, orphan status) and other decision modulators (e.g. patient access schemes, lower discount rates, restrictions, re-assessments) also rendered uncertainty and cost-effectiveness estimates more acceptable. The different HTA approaches (clinical versus cost-effectiveness) and ways identified of dealing with orphan drug particularities also had implications on the final decisions. Conclusions This research contributes to better understanding the drivers of these complex decisions and why countries make different decisions. It also contributed to identifying those factors beyond the standard clinical and cost-effectiveness tools used in HTA, and their role in shaping these decisions.

Item Type: Article
Official URL: http://link.springer.com/journal/10198
Additional Information: © 2016 The Author © CC BY 4.0
Divisions: LSE Health
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Sets: Research centres and groups > LSE Health
Date Deposited: 12 Aug 2016 11:14
Last Modified: 20 Jun 2020 02:19
Projects: 305983
Funders: European Commission
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/67441

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics