IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v126y2022i3p224-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Michael
  • Drummond, Michael
  • Taylor, David
  • McGuire, Alistair
  • Carter, Paul
  • Mossialos, Elias

Abstract

New technologies, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices, can improve treatment options in healthcare but also bring concerns about rising healthcare costs. We undertake a narrative review of the United Kingdom's (UK) approach to appraising new health technologies. We find that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) have contributed to the UK's robust and transparent approach towards the evaluation of new health technologies using the cost per QALY approach. However, there are limitations to this approach including several external benefits not captured, bias against less treatable diseases, and deciding the appropriate level of the threshold. NICE, SMC, and AWMSG have attempted to overcome some of these limitations by considering additional factors such as end-of-life criteria, highly specialised treatments, and populations that experience unmet need. Looking to the future, the advent of ‘personalised’ and ‘genomic’ medicine, will likely mean the UK has to accommodate an increasing number of ‘step-change’ and ‘highly specialised’ technologies as well as respond to changes in pharmaceutical licensing and increasing use of real-world evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:126:y:2022:i:3:p:224-233
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851022000239
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2016. "Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 35-45.
    2. A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.
    3. Nicod, Elena & Maynou, Laia & Visintin, Erica & Cairns, John, 2020. "Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 386-402, July.
    4. Alice Varnava & Robert Bracchi & Karen Samuels & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Philip A. Routledge, 2018. "New Medicines in Wales: The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) Appraisal Process and Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 613-624, May.
    5. Bengt Jönsson & Grace Hampson & Jonathan Michaels & Adrian Towse & J.-Matthias Graf Schulenburg & Olivier Wong, 2019. "Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 427-438, April.
    6. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:84-92 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Panos Kanavos & Alessandra Ferrario & Giovanni Tafuri & Paolo Siviero, 2017. "Managing Risk and Uncertainty in Health Technology Introduction: The Role of Managed Entry Agreements," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 84-92, March.
    8. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    9. Alamgir Khalil & Salahuddin & Wali Khan Mashwani & Muhammad Shafiq & Saima Hassan & Wiyada Kumam, 2021. "New advanced outliers detection tests," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(7), pages 1640-1655, April.
    10. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    11. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    12. Charlesworth, Anita & Anderson, Michael & Donaldson, Cam & Johnson, Paul & Knapp, Martin & McGuire, Alistair & McKee, Martin & Mossialos, Elias & Smith, Peter & Street, Andrew & Woods, Michael, 2021. "What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110806, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Francisca Crispi & Huseyin Naci & Eva Barkauskaite & Leeza Osipenko & Elias Mossialos, 2019. "Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 189-211, April.
    14. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2012. "Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 167-177.
    15. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    16. Anderson, Michael & O'Neill, Ciaran & Macleod Clark, Jill & Street, Andrew & Woods, Michael & Johnston-Webber, Charlotte & Charlesworth, Anita & Whyte, Moira & Foster, Margaret & Majeed, Azeem & Pitch, 2021. "Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110809, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Ana S. Guimarães & João M. P. Q. Delgado & Sandra S. Lucas, 2021. "Advanced Manufacturing in Civil Engineering," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    19. Adrian Towse;Paul Barnsley;Sarah Karlsberg-Schaffer;Jon Sussex, 2013. "Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold," Occasional Paper 000106, Office of Health Economics.
    20. Minxue He & Haksu Lee, 2021. "Advances in Hydrological Forecasting," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-3, July.
    21. Elena Nicod, 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 Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    22. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    2. Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "How do HTA agencies perceive conditional approval of medicines? Evidence from England, Scotland, France and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1130-1143.
    3. Visintin, Erica & Tinelli, Michela & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 118-129.
    4. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    5. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    7. Mackenzie Mills, 2023. "HTA Barriers for Conditional Approval Drugs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 529-545, May.
    8. Elena Nicod, 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 Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    9. Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Löblová, Olga & King, Lawrence & Kaló, Zoltán & Botz, Lajos, 2019. "Shedding light on the HTA consultancy market: Insights from Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1237-1243.
    10. Victoria Serra-Sastre & Simona Bianchi & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Phill O’Neill, 2021. "Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(2), pages 229-242, March.
    11. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.
    12. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    13. Serra-Sastre, Victoria & Bianchi, Simona & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & O’Neill, Phill, 2021. "Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    15. Barajas, Jesus M. PhD & Natekal, Asiya PhD & Abrams, Carolyn MURP, 2022. "An Assessment of how State and Regional Transportation Agencies Advance Equity in Transportation Plans, Processes, and Implementation," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7q36991f, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    16. Sarri, Grammati & Freitag, Andreas & Szegvari, Boglarka & Mountian, Irina & Brixner, Diana & Bertelsen, Neil & Kaló, Zoltán & Upadhyaya, Sheela, 2021. "The Role of Patient Experience in the Value Assessment of Complex Technologies – Do HTA Bodies Need to Reconsider How Value is Assessed?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 593-601.
    17. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. Justyna Berniak-Woźny & Małgorzata Rataj, 2023. "Towards Green and Sustainable Healthcare: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Green Leadership in the Healthcare Sector," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Aris Angelis & Huseyin Naci & Allan Hackshaw, 2020. "Recalibrating Health Technology Assessment Methods for Cell and Gene Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(12), pages 1297-1308, December.
    20. Karl Claxton & James Lomas & Stephen Martin, 2018. "The impact of NHS expenditure on health outcomes in England: Alternative approaches to identification in all‐cause and disease specific models of mortality," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 1017-1023, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:126:y:2022:i:3:p:224-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.