Organizational structure and funding of health technology assessment agencies around the world

Aim: analyze the structure and funding of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies abroad.

Materials and methods. Here, we review the organizational structure and funding of HTA agencies in Europe (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden), Canada and Australia. The relevant information was found on web-sites of HTA agencies, in the Medline database, and via the searching engines Yandex and Google; the search was conducted using the specific descriptors: «organizational structure of HTA agency», «funding of HTA agency», «pharmaceutical», «reimbursement», «healthcare decision-making», and «funding».

Results. The identified HTA-agencies may have a status of either government-funded or nonprofit organization or a structural element of a governmental body. These hTa agencies are funded mainly from the national budget. The funding varies from €550 000 for Ireland to £63.1 mln (€70 million) for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. The number of employees in the reviewed HTA agencies varies from 6.8 full time employees (FTE) in the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) in Ireland to 604 FTEs in the NICE.

1. Dahabreh J., Chan J. A, Earley A. et al. Modeling and Simulation in the Context of Health Technology Assessment: Review of Existing Guidance, Future Research Needs, and Validity Assessment, 2017.

2. Ciani O., Jommi C. The role of health technology assessment bodies in shaping drug development. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 2014; 8: 2273-2281.

3. Akehurst R. L., Abadie E., Renaudin N., Sarkozy F. Variation in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Processes in Europe. Value Heal. 2017; 20 (1): 67-76.

4. Jackson T. J. Health technology assessment in Australia: challenges ahead. Med. J. Aust. 2007; 187 (5): 262-4.

5. Lopert R., Viney R. Revolution then evolution: The advance of health economic evaluation in Australia. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Ge-sundhwes. 2014; 108 (7): 360-6.

6. Allen N., Walker S. R., Liberti L., Salek S. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies : Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations. Value Heal. 2017; 20 (3): 320-8.

7. Chamova J., Stellalliance A. B. Mapping of HTA national organisations, programmes and processes in EU and Norway, 2017. [Electronic resource] URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/2018_mapping_npc_en.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

8. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Austria, 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Austria.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

9. Austria - Pharmaceutical country profile, 2010. URL: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19731en/s19731en.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

10. Leopold C., Habl C., Vogler S., Morak S. PPRI Pharma Profile Austria. Vienna: Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI), 2008.

11. Franken M., Polain M. le, Cleemput I., Koopmanschap M. Policies Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int. J. Heal. Technol. Assess. 2012; 28 (4): 34957.

12. EUnetHTA. An analysis of HTA and reimbursement procedures in EUnetHTA partner countries : final report, 2017. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.eunethta.eu/an-analysis-of-hta-and-reim-bursement-procedures-in-eunethta-partner-countries-final-report/. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

13. Franken M., Stolk E., Scharringhausen T., et al. A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries. Health Policy. 2015; 119 (2): 195202.

14. Allen N., Liberti L., Walker S. R., Salek S. A Comparison of Reimbursement Recommendations by European HTA Agencies : Is There Opportunity for Further Alignment ? Front. Pharmacol. 2017; 8: 384.

15. Barnieh L., Manns B., Harris A. et al. Health Policy Analysis A Synthesis of Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making Processes in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries. Value Heal. 2014; 17 (1): 98-108.

16. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Germany, 2009. [Electronic resource] [URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Ger-many.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

17. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Ireland, 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Ireland.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

18. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Canada, 2011. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/CanadaPh-arm.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

19. Lemeshko V. A., Teptsova T. S. Drug Supply and Health Technology Assessment in Canada’s Health Care System. Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice. 2018; 1 (31): 30-39 (in Russ).

20. Paris V., Docteur E. Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies in Canada. OECD. 2006 (Health Working Papers No. 24).

21. Husereau D., Dempster W., Blanchard A., Chambers J. Evolution of Drug Reimbursement in Canada: The Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for New Drugs. Value Heal. 2014; 17 (8): 888-94.

22. Zuidberg C. The Pharmaceutical System of the Netherlands. A Comparative Analysis Between the Dutch Out-patient Pharmaceutical System, in Particular the Pricing and Reimbursement Characteristics, and Those of the Other European Union Member States, with a Special Focus on Tendering-like Systems, 2010. [Electronic resource] URL: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s23167en/s23167en.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

23. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - United Kingdom, 2008. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/ UK.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

24. Salasvega S., Bertling A., Mossialos E. A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Health Policy. 2016; 120 (10): 1104-14.

25. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Scotland, 2008. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Scot-land.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

26. Teptsova N. S., Lemeshko V. A. Health Technology Assessment in Scotland. Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice. 2018; S 2 (32): 34-41 (in Russ). DOI: 10.31556/2219-0678.2018.32.2.034-041.

27. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - France, 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/France.asp/. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

28. HAS. Pricing & Reimbursement of drugs and HTA policies in France Medicinal Products in France, 2014. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/pricing_reimbursement_of_drugs_and_hta_policies_in_france.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

29. Lopes S. D., Marty C., Berdai D. PHIS Pharma Profile: France. Vienna: Pharmaceutical Health Information System (PHIS), 2011.

30. Blachier C., Kanavo P. France pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement. [Electronic resource] URL: http://plg-group.com/wp-con-tent/uploads/2014/03/France-Pharmaceutical-Pricing-and-Reim-bursement-Corinne-Bl.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

31. Anell A., Pers U. Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: do health-economic evaluations support decision making? Eur. J. Heal. Econ. 2005; 6 (3): 274-9.

32. Procedure guidance for listing medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (including consideration of vaccines for the National Immunisation Program), Version 1.4, 2019. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/procedure-guidance/files/pro-cedure-guidance-listing-medicines-on-the-pbs.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

33. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 5.0), 2016. [Electronic resource] URL: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/files/pbac-guidelines-version-5.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

34. van Wilder P.B., Bormans V.V., Dupont A.G. Relative efficacy and effectiveness assessment of new pharmaceuticals in three EU member states : current practices and outcome agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013; 69 (12): 2037-43.

35. Davidova J., Praznovcova L., Lundborg C.S. Pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in the Czech Republic and Sweden. Pharm. World Sci. 2008; 30 (1): 57-64.

36. Jansson S. Implementing accountability for reasonableness -the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden. Health Econ. Policy Law. 2007; 2 (Pt 2): 153-71.

37. Onten J., Ronnholm G., Skiold P. PPRI Pharma Profile Sweden. Vienna: Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI), 2017.

38. ISPOR Global Health Technology Assessment Road Map. Pharmaceutical HTA and Reimbursement Processes - Sweden, 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: https://tools.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Swe-den.asp. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

39. Tilson L., Leary A. O., Usher C., Barry M. Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation in Ireland A Review of the Process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28 (4): 307-22.

40. Barry M., Tilson L. Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert. Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2007; 7 (6): 605-11.

41. Sandmann F. G., Franken M. G., Steenhoek A., Koopmanschap M. A. Do reassessments reduce the uncertainty of decision making ? Reviewing reimbursement reports and economic evaluations of three expensive drugs over time. Health Policy. 2013; 112 (3): 285-96.

42. Dupree R., Pasman P. Specialist drugs package management. Zorginstituut Nederland, 2013. [Electronic resource] URL: https://en-glish.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2013/12/03/spe-cialist-drugs-package-management. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

43. Franken M., Nilsson F., Koopmanschap M. Unravelling Drug Reimbursement Outcomes : A Comparative Study of the Role of Pharmacoeconomic Evidence in Dutch and Swedish Reimbursement Decision Making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 31 (9): 781-97.

44. Cleemput I. European drug reimbursement systems legitimacy : Five-country comparison and policy tool. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 2012; 28 (4): 358-66.

45. OECD. Pharmaceutical reimbursement and pricing in Germany, 2018. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-sys-tems/Pharmaceutical-Reimbursement-and-Pricing-in-Germany.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

46. Leverkus F., Chuang-stein C. Implementation of AMNOG: An industry perspective. Biometrical J. 2016; 58 (1): 76-88.

47. Staab T. R., Walter M., Nesurini S. M. et al. Market withdrawals of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations. Health Econ. Rev. 2018; 8 (1): 23.

48. Chamova J, Ab S. Mapping of HTA national organisations, programmes and processes in EU and Norway Annexes. 2017. [Electronic resource] URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technolo-gy_assessment/docs/2018_mapping_processes_annexes_en.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

49. Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Funftes Buch (V) - Gesetzliche Kran-kenversicherung - (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes v. 20. Dezember 1988, BGBl. I S. 2477) § 139c Finanzierung. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/BJNR024820988.html. Accessed: 10.04.2019.

50. Vogel L. Health Canada wants more funds from pharma. CMAJ. 2017; 189 (24): E845-E846.

51. CADTH. Industry Application Fees: An Administrative Review, September 26, 2016, 2016. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/ApplicationFeeAdministrativeReview_Final.pdf. Accessed: 10.04.2019.