Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions

Health Policy

Volumn 108, Issue 2-3, 2012, Pages 167-177

  Nicod, Elena ^a   Kanavos, Panos ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Access to healthcare; Health technology assessment; Pharmaceuticals; Pricing and reimbursement; Risk sharing

Indexed keywords

AGENTS ACTING ON THE EYE; AGENTS ACTING ON THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS AND NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEMS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ARIPIPRAZOLE; BEVACIZUMAB; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CETUXIMAB; DRUG; OLANZAPINE; PALIPERIDONE; PLACEBO; QUETIAPINE; RISPERIDONE;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG INDICATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCRIPTION; REIMBURSEMENT; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DRUG THERAPY; ENGLAND; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SCOTLAND; SWEDEN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84870059526     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.012     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. European Commission. Communication from the Commission. Executive summary of the pharmaceutical sector inquiry report; 2009. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/.
2. Bach P.B. Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 2009, 360(6):626-633.
3. Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. A CBO Report: Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States; October 2006.
4. World Health Organisation. Health topics: ageing. Available from (accessed 1.6.11). http://www.who.int/topics/ageing/en/index.html.
5. Wanless D. Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View 2002, HM Treasury.
6. Scherer F.M. The pharmaceutical industry. Handbook of health economics 2000, 1298-1336. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, [chapter 5]. A.J. Culver, J.P. Newhouse (Eds.).
7. Drummond M.F., Schwartz J.S., Jonsson B., et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008, 24:244-258.
8. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: what are we talking about?. Value in Health 2009, 12:S6-S7.
9. Claxton K., Briggs A., Buxton M.J., et al. Value-based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed?. BMJ 2008, 336:251-254.
10. Morgan S.G., McMahon M., Mitton C., et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs (Millwood) 2006, 25:337-347.
11. Drummond M.F. More haste, less speed? The emerging practice of HTA in the United Kingdom. EuroObserver 2009, 11:9-10.
12. Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy 2006, 76:134-143.
13. Sorenson C. The role of health technology assessment coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. EuroObserver 2009, 11:1-2.
14. Clement F., Harris A., Li J. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make coverage decisions, a comparison of Britain, Australia and Canada. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2010, 302:1437-1443.
15. Richards M. Extent and causes of international variation in drug usage: a report for the Secretary of State for Health; July 2010.
16. Kanavos P., Nicod E., Van den Aardweg S., et al. The impact of health technology assessment: an international comparison. EuroObserver 2010, 12:1-7.
17. Pomedli S. HTA and access to cancer medicines. EuroObserver 2010, 12:7-9.
18. Nicod E. Harmonizing the outcomes of HTA: an application to central nervous system treatments. EuroObserver 2010, 12:9-14.
19. Van den Aardweg S. HTA of orphan drugs across six countries: flair, flawed or failing?. EuroObserver 2010, 12:14-19.
20. Sorenson C., Drummond M., Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union 2008, World Health Organization 2008 on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy.
21. Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. EuroObserver 2009, 11.
22. Kristensen F.B., Gerhardus A. Health technology assessment: what do differing conclusions tell us?. BMJ 2010, 341:c5236.
23. Velasco-Garrido M., Busse R. Health technology assessment, an introduction to objectives, role of evidence and structure in Europe 2005, World Health Organization, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy.
24. Kristensen F.B., Makela M., Neikter S.A., et al. European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA: planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25:107-116.
25. Hailey D. Development of the international network of agencies for health technology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25:24-27.
26. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. Orientation paper: proposed priorities for innovative health research 2012; July 2011. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-HEALTH-2012-INNOVATION-1.
27. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAI). About Us-Mission; September 2011. Available from: (accessed November 22.11.11). http://www.htai.org/index.php%3Fid=427.
28. World Health Organisation. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD 10); 2007. Available from: (accessed 14.6.11). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/.
29. McMahon M., Morgan S., Mitton C. The common drug review: a NICE start for Canada?. Health Policy 2006, 77(3):339-351.
30. Wonder M.J., Neville A.M., Parsons P. Are Australians able to access new medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommendations, 1999-2003. Value in Health 2006, 9(4):205-212.
31. Dupont A.G. Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2011, 71:488.
32. Drummond M.F., Wilson D.A., Kanavos P., et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23:36-42.
33. World Health Organisation. Disorders Management - Mental Health - Schizophrenia. Available from (accessed 20.9.12). http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/schizophrenia/en/.
34. Huskamp H.A. Prices, profits, and innovation: examining criticisms of new psychotropic drugs' value. Health Affairs 2006, 25:635-646.
35. European Medicines Agency. European public assessment reports - orphan medicines. European Medicines Agency;2005.
36. Cohen J.A.A. Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960, 20(1):37-46.
37. Bartholomew D.J., Steele F., Moustaki I., Galbraith J.A. Analysis of multivariate social sciences data 2008, p. 1-371 [chapter 4]. 2nd ed.
38. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2). TLV; 2003. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.tlv.se/in-english-old/medicines-new/apply-for-a-price-or-reimbursement/.
39. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technology assessment, 3rd edition. CADTH; 2006. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment/publication/953.
40. Common Drug Review (CDR), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Clinical review report template. CDR; 2008. Available at: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/filing-submission.
41. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal';June 2008. Available at: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/dvnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/%3Fdomedia=1%26mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459.
42. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Department of Health and Ageing. Australian Government. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Board (version 4.3). PBAC; December 2008. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/pbacguidelines-index.
43. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). NHS Scotland. Guidance to manufacturers from completion of new product assessment form (NPAF). SMC; February 2011. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/Latest_News/News_Articles/New_Product_Assessment_Form_NPAF.
44. The Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN) Guidelines for companies. LFN; 2008. Available from: (accessed September 20.9.12). http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-Companies.pdf.
45. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP in current international dollar for Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Sweden and France (2010). IMF; 2010. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx%3Fsy=2009%26ey=2016%26scsm=1%26ssd=1%26sort=country%26ds=.%26br=1%26pr1.x=53%26pr1.y=5%26c=193%2C156%2C132%2C144%2C112%26s=NGDPDPC%26grp=0%26a=.
46. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Global Health Care Systems Road Map - Canada, pharmaceuticals; February 2011. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/CanadaPharm.asp.
47. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Global Health Care Systems Road Map - Sweden, pharmaceuticals. ISPOR; May 2009. Available from (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Sweden.asp.
48. Dranitsaris G., Truter I., Lubbe M., et al. Advances in cancer therapeutics and patient access to new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29:213-224.
49. Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2011, 6:1-8.
50. Vegter S., Rozenbaum M.H., Postema R., et al. Review of regulatory recommendations for orphan drug submissions in the Netherlands and Scotland: focus on the underlying pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Clinical Therapeutics 2010, 32:1651-1661.
51. Common Drug Review (CDR). Notice of CEDAC final recommendation - Paliperidone (Invega - Janssen Ortho Inc.). CDR; 19 March 2008. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/search%3Fq=paliperidone.
52. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Public summary document - Paliperidone, prolonged release tablets, 3mg, 6mg, 9mg, 12mg, Invega. Sponsor: Janssen-Cilag Pty-Ltd. PBAC; November 2007. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbac-psd-paliperidone-nov07.
53. Scotish Medicines Consortium (SMC), NHS Scotland. Paliperidone 3, 6 and 9mg prolonged release tablets (Invega). Advice no. 453/08. SMC; 7 March 2008. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/SMC_Advice/Advice/453_08_paliperidone_tablets/paliperidone_prolonged-release_tablets__INVEGA_.
54. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV). Sökande - Janssen-Cliag AB - Invega, depottablet 3, 6, 9 and 12mg. TLV; 8 September 2008. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.tlv.se/-/sok/%3Fq=invega%26tlvso=1%26resid=1060494695%26uaid=5654D0BB1FFE589018200A4754D4D0FB%3A39332E33322E3136342E3739%3A5246286762186919154%26tlvst=true%26tlvff=0%26tlva=0%26tlvl=-2.
55. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV). Sökande - Janssen-Cliag AB - Invega, depottablet 3, 6, 9 and 12mg. TLV; 8 February 2008. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.tlv.se/-/sok/%3Fq=invega%26tlvso=1%26resid=1060494695%26uaid=5654D0BB1FFE589018200A4754D4D0FB%3A39332E33322E3136342E3739%3A5246286762186919154%26tlvst=true%26tlvff=0%26tlva=0%26tlvl=-2.
56. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), NHS Scotland. Advice, Cetuximab 100mg/20mL and 500mg/100mL solution for intraveneous infusion (Erbitux). no. 543/09. SMC; 6 March 2009. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/General/Homepage_Search_Results%3Fq=cetuximab%26Submit=Search.
57. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), NHS Scotland. Advice, Cetuximab 100mg/20mL and 500mg/100mL solution for intraveneous infusion (Erbitux). no. 543/09. SMC; 15 January 2010. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/General/Homepage_Search_Results%3Fq=cetuximab%26Submit=Search.
58. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Cetuximab, solution for IV infusion, 100mg in 20mL, 100mg in 50mL and 500mg in 100mL, Erbitux. PBAC; March 2010. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbac-psd-cetuximab-mar-10.
59. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer - single technology appraisal. NICE technology appraisal guidance 176. NICE; August 2009. Available from: (accessed 20.12.11). http://www.nice.org.uk/TestSearch.do%3Fx=0%26y=0%26searchText=+cetuximab%26newsearch=true%23/search/%3Freload.
60. Denis A., Mergaert L., Cleemput I., et al. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy 2010, 97:173-179.
61. Rawlins M. De Testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet 2008, 372:2152-2161.
62. Pearson S.D., Rawlins M.D. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2005, 294:2618-2622.