Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 75-89

  Menon, Devidas ^a   Stafinski, Tania ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

coverage decision making; health technology; health technology assessment; HTA agencies; patient preferences; public involvement

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PEER REVIEW; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 79952153959     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.10.82     Document Type: Review

References (107)

1. Feeny D. Diffusion of new health care technologies. Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Public Policy. Feeny D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P (Eds). Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal, Canada, 24-40 (1986).
2. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). Free Press, NY, USA (1995).
3. Culyer AJ. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions - the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthc. Q. 8(3), 56-60 (2005).
4. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 49(1-2), 45-61 (1999). (Pubitemid 29516469)
5. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest PG. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy 66(1), 95-106 (2003). (Pubitemid 37123026)
6. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect 11(1), 72-84 (2008). (Pubitemid 351239422)
7. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Soc. Sci. Med. 64(10), 2115-2128 (2007). (Pubitemid 46582827)
8. Nutt PC. How decision makers evaluate alternatives and the influence of complexity. Manage. Sci. 44(8), 1148-1166 (1998). (Pubitemid 128569658)
9. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. It all depends: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(10), 1518-1526 (2010).
10. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J et al. Patients perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26(3), 334-340 (2010).
11. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patients perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(1), 92-96 (2004). (Pubitemid 38656968)
12. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(3), 310-315 (2007). (Pubitemid 46956887)
13. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(1), 30-35 (2007). (Pubitemid 46648297)
14. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy 69(2), 253-268 (2004). (Pubitemid 38801501)
15. Wait S, Nolte E. Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Econ. Policy Law 1(Pt 2), 149-162 (2006).
16. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 87(2), 339-367 (2009).
17. Street JM, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Facey K, Ashcroft RE, Hiller JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 11(2), 189-200 (2008). (Pubitemid 351725000)
18. Chafe R, Merali F, Laupacis A, Levinson W, Martin D. Does the public think it is reasonable to wait for more evidence before funding innovative health technologies? The case of PET scanning in Ontario. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26(2), 192-197 (2010).
19. Bilimoria NM. CMS never events and other new trends in quality health care standards for hospitals. Health Care Law Mon. 2008(12), 2-10 (2008).
20. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 22(4), 497-499 (2006). (Pubitemid 44622970)
21. Fattal J, Lehoux P. Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: why and how? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(4), 473-480 (2008).
22. Massol J, Puech A, Boissel J-P et al. How to anticipate the assessment of the public health benefit of new medicines? Therapie 62(5), 417-435 (2007). (Pubitemid 351297667)
23. Roche T, Brunet V. Medical Devices Evaluation by the HAS in Order to be Reimbursed in France. Roche & Associes, Lyon, France (2009).
24. Orvain J, Xerri B, Matillon Y. Overview of health technology assessment in France. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(1), 25-34 (2004). (Pubitemid 38656958)
25. Manning J, Paterson R. Prioritization: rationing health care in New Zealand. J. Law Med. Ethics 33(4), 681-697 (2005). (Pubitemid 43206891)
26. Garner S. How decisions on the use of medicines and medical devices are made. Pharmaceutical J. 275(7364), 254-256 (2005). (Pubitemid 41264058)
27. Stolk EA, de Bont A, van Halteren AR, Bijlmer RJ, Poley MJ. Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in The Netherlands. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 9(1), 85-94 (2009).
28. Fry ST. Nancy Cruzan is allowed to die, but uncertainties remain. Nurs. Outlook 39(2), 96 (1991).
29. Berg M, van der Grinten T, Klazinga N. Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(1), 35-43 (2004). (Pubitemid 38656959)
30. Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund) 59, 1-12 (2009).
31. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing the public into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 82(1), 37-50 (2007). (Pubitemid 46610527)
32. Borowski HZ, Brehaut J, Hailey D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: the Alberta model. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(2), 155-161 (2007). (Pubitemid 46642722)
33. Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(3), 299-309 (2007). (Pubitemid 46956882)
34. Handbook on HTA capacity building. EUnetHTA work package 8. Barcelona (Spain): Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research/European Network for Health Technology Assessment www.gencat.cat/salut/depsan/units/ aatrm/ pdf/eunethta-wp8-hb-hta-capacity- building.pdf
35. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government. Department of Health and Ageing www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/ pbacguidelines-index
36. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186- EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf
37. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/ sherry-arnstein/ ladder-of-citizen-participation.html#d0e24-net-final.pdf.
38. Health technology assessment handbook 2007. Health Technology Assessment www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2008/MTV/ Metode/HTA-Handbook
39. Alberta: Institute of Health Economics. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR21.pdf
40. Enhancing consumer involvement in medicines health technology assessment. Final report. Deloitte www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/ Documents/Industries/Deloitte-Consumer%20Involvement%20 in%20HTA%20Report.pdf
41. Wong-Rieger D, Fowler E. Engaging patients in HTA in Canada: whats working and what needs to be done? www.cadth.ca/media/symp-2009/ presentations/CS-3/Durhane%20Wong- Reiger%20-%20Engaging%20Patients%20 in%20HTA%20in%20Canada.pdf
42. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Australia - health policy decision process www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/ AustraliaHP.asp
43. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom http://content. healthaffairs.org/cgi/ content/abstract/25/2/337
44. About the PBS. PBS - how do drugs get on the scheme? www.health.gov.au/ internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pbs-phbenbir.htm
45. Advisory Committee on Prescription Medicines www.tga.gov.au/committee/ acpm.htm
46. Part 1: role of the PBAC. In: 1995 guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs- general-pubs-guidelines-part1.htm#role
47. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: PBAC membership www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general- listing-committee3.htm
48. Haas M, Viney R, Gallego G. Implementing guidelines for reimbursement in Australia: how the PBAC & MSAC use comparative cost-effectiveness www.hpm.org/Downloads/Symposium- Krakau/Marion-Haas-Australia.pdf
49. Current MSAC membership www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing. nsf/content/current-membership-1
50. Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Information paper: new health technologies, medical devices and prostheses www.chf.org.au/pdfs/cns/cns-462- new-health-technologies.pdf
51. Review of health technology assessment in Australia: a discussion paper www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/208F913CD40AD 7F9CA2575850080CACD/$File/ htadiscussionpaper.pdf
52. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/ publishing.nsf/Content/ D81BE529B98B3D B6CA2575AD0082FD1B/$File/ guidelines.pdf
53. Medical Services Advisory Committee performance report 2008-2009. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/ publishing.nsf/Content/9FD4C2646B76F A43CA25768F00221A26/$File/MSAC- Performance%20-Report-2008-09.pdf
54. Are you involved with new technologies or clinical procedures? Are they, or should they be funded under Medicare? Consider an MSAC assessment www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/ publishing.nsf/Content/61DB23F245AFC 9C8CA2575AD0082FCA0/$File/ Brochure-MSAC-Final-160606.pdf
55. Healy P, Pugatch M. Theory versus practice: discussing the governance of health technology assessment systems www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/ publications/Theory-versus-Practice.pdf
56. Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices (2006). Medical Devices Canada http://web.archive.org/ web/20060620202547/medec.org/docs/ HTA-english.pdf
57. Procedure for Common Drug Review www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/CDR- Procedure-e.pdf
58. Rochaix L, Xerri B. National Authority for Health: France www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/ Publications/Issue-Briefs/2009/Jul/ National-Authority-for-Health-France.aspx
59. Chicoye A, Chhabra A. ISPOR global health care systems road map: France - pharmaceuticals www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/France.asp
60. Chicoye A, Levesque K. ISPOR global health care systems road map: France - medical devices. www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/FranceMD. asp
61. Medical device assessment in France: guidebook. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS) www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/ application/pdf/2010-03/guide-dm- gb-050310.pdf
62. Rapid assessment method for assessing medical and surgical procedures. Cedex (France) www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/ application/pdf/rapid- assessment-method- eval-actes.pdf
63. Nguyen-Kim L, Or Z, Paris V, Sermet C. The politics of drug reimbursement in England, France and Germany www.irdes.fr/EspaceAnglais/Publications/ IrdesPublications/QES099.pdf
64. General method for assessing health technologies www.has-sante.fr/ portail/upload/docs/ application/pdf/general-method-eval- techno.pdf
65. Haute Autorite de Sante www.has-sante.fr
66. EuroPharma Today: French price cuts continue, but austerity budget could be worse www.europharmatoday.com/2010/10/ french-price-cuts-continue-but- austerity-budget-could-be-worse.html
67. Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. Euro Observer: the Health Policy Bulletin of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies 2009 www.euro.who.int/-data/ assets/pdf- file/0019/80335/EuroObserver- spring2009.pdf
68. Nasser M, Sawicki P. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/ Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/ 2009/Jul/ Chalkidou/1294-Nasser-CER-Germany- issue-brief-724.pdf
69. Holtorf AP, Matuszewski K, Nuijten M, Vauth C. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Germany www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Germany.asp
70. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement information: Germany. Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information - PPRI; 2008. http://ppri.oebig.at/Downloads/Results/ Germany-PPRI-2008.pdf
71. The Federal Joint Committee. Berlin: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Institut fur Qualitat und Wirtschaftlichkeit in Gesundheitswesen www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98- 2804/2010-2001-01-Faltblatt- GBA-engl.pdf
72. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Independent, patient-oriented, evidence-based www.iqwig.net/methods-procedures.926. en.html
73. Decision-making about new health interventions. Wellington, NZ: National Health Committee www.nhc.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexcm/nhc-new-health- interventions
74. District health board decision-making about new health interventions: a background paper www.nhc.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/ pagescm/667/$File/dhb- decisions-new-health-background-paper.pdf
75. PHARMAC consultation www.pharmac.govt.nz/patients/ haveyoursay/ consultation
76. Medicines strategy. Submission on consultation document: Towards a medicines strategy. (PHARMAC) www.pharmac.govt.nz/2009/07/10/ Submission%20on%20the%20 development%20of%20the%20 Medicines%20Strategy.pdf/text
77. Guidelines for funding applications to PHARMAC 2010 www.pharmac.govt.nz/ 2010/02/11/ Guidelines%20for%20Suppliers%20 Submissions.pdf/text
78. Operating policies and procedures of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency 3rd Edition www.pharmac.govt.nz/2005/12/22/231205. pdf
79. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Scotland www.ispor.org/ HTARoadMaps/Scotland.asp
80. An evaluation of how SMC has engaged with its key stakeholders and shaped medicines use across NHS Scotland: summary report www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/ files/SMC- Eval1-FINAL-lores.pdf
81. Scottish Medicines Consortium www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/smc/22.html
82. Facey K. Improving impact of patient participation in health technology assessment http://ecpc-online.org/component/docman/ doc-download/123-karen- facey-patient-participation-in-hta.html?ItemId=127
83. ISPOR global health care systems road map: The Netherlands www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/ Netherlands.asp
84. Schafer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W et al. European Observatory on Health Care Systems www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/ observatory/publications/health- system-profiles-hits/full-list-of-hits/netherlands-hit-2010
85. van Nooten F, van Agthoven M. Mandatory pharmacoeconomic studies in the Dutch reimbursement setting. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Newsletter. 3(1), 1-3 (2005) www.imta.nl/publications/imta- newsletter-3-1.pdf
86. Supporting rational local decision-making about medicines (and treatments): a handbook of good practice guidance www.npc.co.uk/policy/ resources/ handbook-executive.pdf
87. Defining guiding principles for processes supporting local decision making about medicines. Final report. National Prescribing Centre www.midessex.nhs.uk/Documents/ Key-Documents/Policies%20and%20 Procedures/Medicines%20Management%20 Policies%20and%20Procedures/DH%20 Defining%20Guiding%20Principles%20 for%20Processes%20supporting%20 Local%20Decision%20Making%20 about%20Medicines%20Report.pdf
88. Wilson G. ISPOR global health care systems road map: United Kingdom - diagnostics. www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/ UKDiagnostics.asp
89. ISPOR global health care systems road map: United Kingdom (England and Wales) - reimbursemment process www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/UK.asp
90. Guide to the single technology appraisal process. London NICE www.nice.org.uk/media/913/06/Guide-to- the-STA-proof-6-26-10-09.pdf
91. ISPOR global health care systems road map: United States - health policy decision process www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/USHP.asp
92. Health technology assessment. Health technology selection process. Olympia (WA, USA) www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/selection- process.pdf
93. Factors CMS considers in opening a National Coverage Determination www.cms.gov/mcd/ncpc-view-document. asp?id=6
94. National Coverage Determinations with data collection as a condition of coverage: coverage with evidence development. In: Guidance for the Public, Industry, and CMS Staff. Baltimore (MD): U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services www.cms.gov/mcd/ncpc- view-document. asp?id=8
95. Factors CMS considers in referring topics to the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. In: Guidance for the Public, Industry, and CMS Staff. Baltimore (MD): U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services www.cms.gov/mcd/ncpc- view-document. asp?id=10
96. Guiding principles for when National Coverage Determination topics are referred for external expertise via a technology assessment and/or the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee. Draft guidance - not for implementation www.cms.gov/FACA/Downloads/ guidelines.pdf
97. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: Independent review process www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/ Independent%20Review%20process%20- fina%20for%20website-.pdf
98. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, Vale of Glamorgan (Wales) www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/home. cfm?orgid=371
99. AHTDP information and reports. Health Technologies and Services Policy Unit www.health.alberta.ca/initiatives/ AHTDP-info-reports.html#newsletter
100. OHTAC recommendations. Decision-making framework www.health.gov.on.ca/ english/providers/ program/ohtac/decision-frame.html
101. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee: evidence-based advice on technology to advance health www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/ program/ohtac/ohtac-mn.html
102. MAS - OHTAC process overview www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/ program/ohtac/pdf/pe-phase-2-20071214. pdf
103. Medical Technology Assessment Program www.oregon.gov/OHPPR/HRC/docs/ HRC.Reports/MEDTAP-09- accepted.pdf
104. Medical Technology Assessment Program. Adopted by the Health Resources Commission pn 2-17-06 www.oregon.gov/OHPPR/HRC/docs/ Policy/MedTapPolicy.pdf
105. Health technology assessment - HTA. Prioritization criteria www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/ prioritization-criteria.pdf
106. Washington Health Technology Assessment Program (overview) www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/hta- overview.pdf
107. Health technology assessment: program review www.hta.hca.wa.gov/ documents/program- review.pdf