HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".
Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only "in the light of" evidence but also "on the basis of" budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA reports fail to develop ethical arguments and generally do not even mention ethical issues. This comment argues that some of these defects are more apparent than real and are not inherent in HTA - as distinct from being common characteristics found in poorly conducted HTAs. More generally, HTA does not need "extension" since (1) ethical issues are already embedded in HTA processes, not least in their scoping phases, and (2) HTA processes are already sufficiently flexible to accommodate evidence about a wide range of factors, and will not need fundamental change in order to accommodate the new forms of decision-relevant evidence about distributional impact and financial protection that are now starting to emerge. HTA and related techniques are there to support decision-makers who have authority to make decisions. Analysts like us are there to support and advise them (and not to assume the responsibilities for which they, and not we, are accountable). The required quality in HTA then becomes its effectiveness as a means of addressing the issues of concern to decision-makers. What is also required is adherence by competent analysts to a standard template of good analytical practice. The competencies include not merely those of the usual disciplines (particularly biostatistics, cognitive psychology, health economics, epidemiology, and ethics) but also the imaginative and interpersonal skills for exploring the "real" question behind the decision-maker's brief (actual or postulated) and eliciting the social values that necessarily pervade the entire analysis. The product of such exploration defines the authoritative scope of an HTA.
Department of Economics & Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Anthony J
AJ
Culyer
D000465:Algorithms; D020811:Biomedical Technology; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003657:Decision Making; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009014:Morals; D012941:Social Responsibility; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Deliberation; Economic Evaluation; Equity; Extended Cost-Effectiveness; HTA Processes; Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) Algorithm; Reference Case
Med Decis Making. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):128-37
17409363
Health Policy. 2003 Feb;63(2):121-32
12543525
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Apr;28(2):125-32
22494637
Health Econ. 2015 Jun;24(6):742-54
24798212
Health Aff (Millwood). 1998 Sep-Oct;17(5):50-64
9769571
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Aug 21;4:14
16923181
Health Econ. 2017 Oct;26(10):1328-1334
27649686
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Aug 29;12:18
25246855
Health Econ. 2006 Nov;15(11):1155-8
16929485
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 06;5(1):1-3
26673643
Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Apr;4(Pt 2):231-45
19216834
J Health Econ. 1993 Dec;12(4):431-57
10131755
Med Decis Making. 2012 May-Jun;32(3):428-41
22065143
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):423-9
18828936
Health Econ. 2015 Mar;24(3):318-32
24497185
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Summer;21(3):312-8
16110710
GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014 Nov 26;10:Doc04
25493101
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(12):983-9
19908923