IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v8y2018i1d10.1186_s13561-018-0201-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leveraging EUnetHTA’s conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer’s point of view

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Giuliani

    (Roche S.p.A)

  • Frederic Chassagnol

    (Roche SAS)

  • David Traub

    (Roche Pharma AG)

  • Marlene Gyldmark

    (F. Hoffmann La Roche)

  • Ansgar Hebborn

    (F. Hoffmann La Roche)

  • Pierre Ducournau

    (F. Hoffmann La Roche)

  • Jörg Ruof

    (Medical School of Hanover
    r-connect ltd)

Abstract

Background Health Technology Assessments (HTA) procedures differ substantially across the various European countries. We reviewed recent appraisals of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in three major European markets (France; Italy; Germany) and identified and categorized related decision drivers. Methods New marketing authorisation between January 2011 and August 2017, and Roche being the Marketing Authorization Holder, were included. Outcome of HTA appraisals by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), and Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were reviewed. Respective decision drivers were identified and commonalities and differences across the three countries were determined leveraging the EUnetHTA conceptual taxonomy (i.e. the 9 domains of the EUnetHTA core model). Results Within that time period Roche received European marketing authorization for eight new molecular entities (10 indications, respectively). Outcome of HTA appraisals was heterogeneous across the three countries. However, the four clinical domains of the EUnetHTA core model were driving the national HTA appraisals, with the clinical effectiveness domain being of most importance. Important drivers related to the other three clinical domains included the target patient population (subgroups, Germany), the current management of the condition (unmet need, Italy), the regulatory status (Orphan Designation, Germany), as well as safety considerations (all three countries). Average time between EMA approval and full commercial availability of new medicines was 63 (Germany), 459 (Italy), and 557 days (France). Conclusions The clinical domains of the EUnetHTA framework are mainly driven by national HTA appraisals, providing a suitable starting point for further developing a joint European view on value and evidence. Underlying topics and issues still reveal considerable differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Giuliani & Frederic Chassagnol & David Traub & Marlene Gyldmark & Ansgar Hebborn & Pierre Ducournau & Jörg Ruof, 2018. "Leveraging EUnetHTA’s conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer’s point of view," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0201-y
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-018-0201-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-018-0201-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-018-0201-y?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chassagnol, F & Marcelli, G & Wagle, J & Giuliani, G & Traub, D & Schaub, V & Ruof, J, 2020. "Review of Relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals at the European network for health technology assessment (EUnetHTA): A first step towards a consolidated European perspective on ," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 943-951.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0201-y. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.