How to choose health technologies to be assessed by HTA? A review of criteria for priority setting.

INTRODUCTION Health Technology Assessment (HTA) plays a key role in the policy and decision-making process. Nevertheless, it is time- and resource-consuming, and therefore requires proper resource allocation. Priority setting, as a best way to organize effective and explicit resource allocation systems, may be applied even in this field. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to provide an overview of criteria used for priority setting in HTA at European level. METHODS A systematic review of the scientific literature was performed through PubMed alongside consultation of the websites of the European HTA Agencies belonging to the INAHTA. The search was limited to papers written in English and provided with the full text. Documents were considered eligible if providing criteria for priority setting in HTA. RESULTS Seven scientific articles were retrieved from PubMed and 14 European HTA Agencies released prioritization criteria were analysed. The most relevant criteria were: frequency/burden of disease, economic impact and costs, potential benefits, impact on ethical, social, cultural and/or legal aspects. CONCLUSION This work is meant to contribute to supranational discussion on priority setting at European level and shows that, despite the available evidence, work still needs to be done toward harmonization and sharing of the criteria to adopt.

[1]  Sox Hc,et al.  Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment: A Model Process , 1992 .

[2]  L. Bouter,et al.  Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: actors and activities. , 1999, Health policy.

[3]  Lex M Bouter,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: principles and practice. , 2002, Health policy.

[4]  Stuart Peacock,et al.  Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. , 2009, Health policy.

[5]  Marta Aymerich,et al.  Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[6]  J. Raftery,et al.  Health Technology Assessment in the UK , 2013, The Lancet.

[7]  Mona Nasser,et al.  Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[8]  Mita Giacomini,et al.  Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. , 2007, Health policy.

[9]  Danguole Jankauskiene,et al.  A MODEL FOR HTA PRIORITY SETTING: EXPERIENCE IN LITHUANIA , 2013, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[10]  L. Sabik,et al.  Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries , 2008, International Journal for Equity in Health.

[11]  H. Dickinson,et al.  Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: evidence from the English experience. , 2012, Social science & medicine.

[12]  A Stevens,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. , 1997, International journal of technology assessment in health care.

[13]  M. Buxton,et al.  Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[14]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[15]  M. Drummond,et al.  Issues for countries considering introducing the “fourth hurdle”: The case of Hungary , 2004, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.