Imaginary Worlds: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Recommendations for Health Economic Evaluations

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines for health economic evaluations represent a consolidated view of non-binding recommendations for assessments of the relative effectiveness of pharmaceuticals or other health technologies. EUnetHTA views itself as the scientific and technological backbone of the development of health technology assessment in the European Union and among its member states and other partners. Unfortunately, the standards for health technology assessment proposed by EUnetHTA do not meet the standards of normal science. They do not support credible claims for the clinical and comparative cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. In rejecting the standards of normal science the guidelines put to one side the opportunity not only to re-assess and replicate clinical and cost-effectiveness claims but to provide meaningful feedback on claims assessment to health care decision makers. The purpose of this review is to make the case that, in failing to support standards for experimentation, EUnetHTA is advocating its partners support the creation of modeled or simulated imaginary or false worlds. While EUnetHTA is not alone in recommending the construction of imaginary worlds to support formulary decisions, there is still the opportunity to revisit these recommendations and decide whether or not to encourage a scientifically rigorous approach to health technology assessments - to abandon a commitment to intelligent design in favor of natural selection.  Conflict of Interest None   Type: Commentary

[1]  Great Expectations: Cost-Utility Models as Decision Criteria , 2016 .

[2]  E Ernst,et al.  Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk , 2011 .

[3]  P. Langley Supporting Formulary Decisions: The Discovery of New Facts or Constructed Evidence? , 2016 .

[4]  Andrew H Briggs,et al.  Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[5]  P. Langley Modeling Imaginary Worlds: Version 4 of the AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions , 2016 .

[6]  J. Caro,et al.  Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--7. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  P. Langley Validation of modeled pharmacoeconomic claims in formulary submissions , 2015, Journal of medical economics.

[8]  J. Chamova,et al.  European network for health technology assessment – EUnetHTA , 2013 .

[9]  T. Broadbent,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge , 1972 .

[10]  P. Langley Sunlit Uplands: The Genius of the NICE Reference Case , 2016 .

[11]  P. Langley Na domhain shamhlaíochta: formulary submission guidelines in Ireland and the standards of normal science , 2016, Current medical research and opinion.

[12]  P. Langley Imaginary Worlds: Modeled claims for cost-effectiveness published in PharmacoEconomics January 2015 to December 2015 , 2016 .

[13]  P. Langley He Ao Pohewa: The PHARMAC Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in New Zealand and the Standards of Normal Science , 2016 .

[14]  Gideon Nave,et al.  Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics , 2016, Science.

[15]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[16]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[17]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .