Advertisement

Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria

  • László GulácsiEmail author
  • Alexandru M. Rotar
  • Maciej Niewada
  • Olga Löblová
  • Fanni Rencz
  • Guenka Petrova
  • Imre Boncz
  • Niek S. Klazinga
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper describes and discusses the development and use of health technology assessment (HTA) in five Central and Eastern European countries (CEE): Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. It provides a general snapshot of HTA policies in the selected CEE countries to date by focusing on country case-studies based on document analysis and expert opinion. It offers an overview of similarities and differences between the individual CEE countries and discusses in detail the role of HTA by assessing its formalization and institutionalization, standardization of methodology, the use of HTA in practice and the degree of professionalization of HTA in the region. It finds that HTA has been to some extent implemented in all five countries studied, with methodologies in accordance with international standards, but that challenges remain when it comes to the role of HTA in health care decision-making as well as to human resource capacities of the countries. This paper suggests that coming years will show whether CEE countries develop adequate national analytical capacity to assess and appraise technologies in the context of local need and affordability, instead of using HTA as a mere administrative procedure to fulfill (inter)national requirements. Finally, suggestions are provided to strengthen HTA in CEE countries through cooperation, mutual learning, a common accreditation of HTA bodies and increased network building among CEE HTA experts.

Keywords

Health technology assessment Bulgaria Czech Republic  Hungary Poland Romania 

JEL Classification

I 180 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Tomasz Pasierski, Head of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Diseases Unit at the Specialist Hospital in Miedzylesie, Department of Bioethics in the Medical University of Warsaw and Head of the Transparency Board of AHTAPol for his invaluable comments on drug safety perception in reimbursement decision-making in Poland and to Dr. József Gajdácsi, Deputy Director General, Dr. Péter Varga, Head of Analysis, Medical Expertise and Controlling, National Health Insurance Fund Administration, Hungary and Gabriella Jóna, Head of TAHD, Hungary for their helpful comments and contribution.

Proofreading of the manuscript was supported by the TÁMOP 4.2.2./B-10/1-2010-0023 project.

References

  1. 1.
    Order No 1/2010 of President of AHTAPol dated 4 January 2010 on guidelines on health technology assessment. English—http://www.aotm.gov.pl/assets/files/wytyczne_hta/2009/Guidelines_HTA_eng_MS_29062009.pdf (02-02-2014)
  2. 2.
    Regulation of the Minister of Health of 2 April 2012 on the minimum requirements to be satisfied by analyses accounted for in the applications for reimbursement and setting the official sales price and for increasing the official sales price of a drug, a special purpose dietary supplement, a medical device, which do not have a reimbursed counterpart in a given indication. http://www.aotm.gov.pl/assets/files/wytyczne_hta/2012/Regulation_MoH_minimum_requirements_03042012_eng.pdf (02-02-2014)
  3. 3.
    Act on the Reimbursement of Drugs, Food Products for Special Dietary Purposes and Medical Devices with Public Funds 12 May 2011, Journal of Laws 2011 No 122, Poz. 696Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kolasa, K., Schubert, S., Manca, A., Hermanowski, T.: A review of health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations for drug therapies issued between 2007 and 2009 and their impact on policymaking processes in Poland. Health Policy 102, 145–151 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolasa, K., Wasiak, R.: Health technology assessment in Poland and Scotland: comparison of process and decisions. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health Care 27(1), 70–76 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niewada, M., Polkowska, M., Jakubczyk, M., Golicki, D.: What influences recommendations issued by the agency for health technology assessment in Poland? A glimpse into decision makers’ preferences, Value in Health Regional Issues 2, 267–272 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ČTK. Heger dal vládě 14 opatření ke zlepšení financí ve zdravotnictví. MEDICAL TRIBUNE CZ. http://www.tribune.cz/clanek/28311-heger-dal-vlade-opatreni-ke-zlepseni-financi-ve-zdravotnictvi (2012)
  8. 8.
    Vepřek, P.: Reforma zdravotnictví a role HTA České zdravotnictví. PowerPoint presentation (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vepřek, P. HTA v České republice (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Státní úřad pro kontrolu léčiv. SP-CAU-027—W Postup pro hodnocení dopadu do rozpočtu. http://www.sukl.cz/file/73503_1_1 (2012)
  11. 11.
    Státní úřad pro kontrolu léčiv. 01-A-SP-CAU-028 Postup pro hodnocení nákladové efektivity. http://www.sukl.cz/file/73935 (2013)
  12. 12.
    Ministerstvo zdravotnictví ČR. Ministr Němeček odvolal šéfa Státního ústavu pro kontrolu léčiv. Press Release. http://www.mzcr.cz/dokumenty/ministr-nemecek-odvolal-sefa-statniho-ustavu-pro-kontrolu-leciv-_8725_1.html (2014)
  13. 13.
    Böhm, K., Landwehr, C.: The Europeanization of health care coverage decisions: EU-regulation, policy learning and cooperation in decision-making. J. Eur. Integr. 36(1), 17–35 (2014). doi: 10.1080/07036337.2013.793679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolezal, T.: Hranice ochoty platitt ve světě v podmínkách ČR. In Diskusní setkání z cyklu „Dialogem k reformě“sdružení Občan: „Hranice ochoty platit—proč, jak, kdy?” Prague, 22 May 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vrubel, F.: Stanovisko k úhradám vysoce inovativních přípravků., Pub. L. No. MZDR10517/2012. http://www.mzcr.cz/Odbornik/dokumenty/stanovisko-k-uhradam-vysoce-inovativnich-lecivych-pripravku_6116_1954_3.html (2012)
  16. 16.
    Prochazkova, M., Kubickova, P., Mazelova, J., Hambalek, J., Heislerova, M.: PHP130—pricing and reimbursement system of orphan drugs in the Czech Republic. Value Health 16(7), A474 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allen, N., Pichler, F., Wang, T., Patel, S., Salek, S.: Development of archetypes for non-ranking classification and comparison of European National Health Technology Assessment systems. Health Policy 113(3), 305–312 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MoH 2013 Az Emberi Erıforrások Minisztériuma szakmai irányelve, az egészség-gazdaságtani elemzések készítéséhez, 2013. EüK. 3. szám EMMI közlemény 2 (hatályos: 2013.03.01)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jóna G.: A GYEMSZI Technológia-értékelő Főosztály tapasztalataiból. Corvinus Health Policy Series Conference 2011.10.03. BudapestGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jóna, G., Kozma, P.O., Nádudvari, N., Kárpáti, K.: Gyógyszer-kibocsátó stentek alkalmazása percutan coronaria intervencióban A szakirodalom szisztematikus áttekintése, ESKI 2006 BudapestGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    28/2010. (12/05/2010) Decree of the Ministry of Health in HungaryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Endrei, D., Molics, B., Ágoston, I.: Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real word experiences from Hungary, Value in Health. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.011
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Lopert, R., Ruiz, F., Chalkidou, K.: Applying rapid ‘de-facto’ HTA in resource-limited settings: experience from Romania. Health Policy 112, 202–208 (2013)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruiz, F., Lopert, R., Chalkidou, K.: Technical assistance in reviewing the content and listing processes for the Romanian basic package of health services and technologies, NICE International, January 2012. http://www.medalert.ro/sites/default/files/attachments/Evaluarea%20listei%20de%20medicamente%20compensate_raport%20NICE%202012.pdf
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Law for medicines in human medicine. Governmental Gazette N 31, April 13 2007; last amended Gov. gazette 1, January 3, 2014Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Health Insurance Act. Governmental Gazette 70, June 19, 1998, last amended Gov. Gazette 1, January 3, 2014Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ministry Council Decree 97/19.04.2013, Governmental Gazette 40/30.04.2013Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    NICE: Developing NICE multiple technology appraisals (MTAs), http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/developing_nice_multiple_technology_appraisals.jsp, Retrieved on 7/3/2014 (2013)
  37. 37.
    Downing, N.S., Aminawung, J.A., Shah, N.D., Krumholz, H.M., Ross, J.S.: Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005–2012. JAMA 311(4), 368–377 (2014). doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282034 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cleemput, I., Neyt, M., Thiry, N., Laet, C., Leys, M.: Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in health care decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27, 71–76 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCabe, C., Claxton, K., Culyer, A.J.: The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 733–744 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gulácsi, L., Péntek, M., Brodszky, V.: Az egészségügyi technológiák finanszírozása; tudjuk-e mit veszünk a milliárdokért? Esély 2, 3–27 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gulácsi, L., Boncz, I., Drummond, M.: Issues for countries considering introducing the ‘fourth hurdle’; the case of Hungary. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(3), 337–341 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Gulácsi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandru M. Rotar
    • 2
  • Maciej Niewada
    • 3
    • 4
  • Olga Löblová
    • 5
  • Fanni Rencz
    • 1
  • Guenka Petrova
    • 6
  • Imre Boncz
    • 7
  • Niek S. Klazinga
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health EconomicsCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Social MedicineUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Experimental and Clinical PharmacologyMedical University of WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.HealthQuest Consulting CompanyWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Department of Public PolicyCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  6. 6.Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoeconomics, Faculty of PharmacyMedical UniversitySofiaBulgaria
  7. 7.Institute for Health Insurance, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of PécsPecsHungary

Personalised recommendations