International Comparison of Comparative Effectiveness Research in Five Jurisdictions
Spurred by a desire to improve quality of care and to understand the relative value of medical treatments, there has been a recent surge of interest in publicly funded comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the US. As health technology assessment (HTA) shares some of the same goals as CER, and publicly funded HTA has been a feature within other industrialized countries for many years, a review of HTA activities in some of these countries can be a helpful source of information for the US debate.
Informed by a literature review, and in two cases augmented by informant interviews, we reviewed the organization of HTA activities in five jurisdictions: Canada, Sweden, Scotland, the Netherlands and Australia. We provide a summary description of the healthcare system in each country as well as a description of the key features of their HTA bodies, with a particular focus on the processes of HTA for listing medications on public formularies.
Four of the committees evaluating medications for formulary inclusion are funded by, but remain at arm’s length from, the government (Canada, Australia, Sweden and Scotland), while the process is fully embedded within the government in the Netherlands. Each of these jurisdictions has a stated preference for comparative outcomes evidence from randomized controlled trials, but will, under certain circumstances, accept randomized evidence using surrogate markers, other comparators that are not directly relevant or non-randomized evidence. Health technology evaluation committees largely comprise health professionals, with public representatives included in the Canadian, Australian and Scottish committees. Scotland is the only one of the five jurisdictions reviewed to have industry representation on the evaluation committee.
We identified seven characteristics that are shared across the jurisdictions reviewed and that potentially serve as insights for development of CER in the US: (i) the process must be responsive to stakeholders’ interests, in that the turn-around time for assessments must be minimized, transparency must be maximized, the process must be considered fair using universally agreed standards and the process must be modifiable based on stakeholders’ requirements; (ii) the assessment of medical technologies other than drugs may present different challenges and is managed separately in other HTA organizations; (iii) because of the link between HTA and reimbursement decisions, completion of the HTA process following regulatory approval can delay market access to new technologies, thus closer integration between regulatory approval and HTA processes is being explored internationally; (iv) there is a direct or indirect link to reimbursement in the jurisdictions explored–without this link the role of CER in the US will remain advisory; (v) each jurisdiction reviewed benefits from a single payer that is informed by the process–given the diverse multipayer environment in the US, CER in the US may usefully focus on generating comparative effectiveness evidence; (vi) a common metric for assessing intended and unintended effects of treatment allows comparison across different technologies; and (vii) one stated focus of CER is on therapeutic benefit among ‘high-priority populations’, including specific demographic groups (the elderly and children, racial and ethnic minorities) and individuals with disabilities, multiple chronic conditions and specific genomic factors. This will be difficult to achieve because epidemiological evidence of differences in therapeutic benefit among subgroups is detected through effect modification, or more specifically, statistical evidence of effect measure modification, typically on relative measures of effect. Few randomized trials have enough power to detect effect modification and these have been uncommon in the scientific literature. As consideration is given to the development of a publicly funded CER body in the US, much can be learned from the international experience. Nevertheless, there are some distinctive features of the US healthcare system that must be taken into account when assessing the transferability of these insights.
This review was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the contents of this review.
- 1.American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong.Google Scholar
- 2.America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, HR3200, 111th Cong.Google Scholar
- 3.America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong.Google Scholar
- 4.Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, HR3962, 111th Cong.Google Scholar
- 7.Office of Technology Assessment. Policy implications of the computed tomography (CT) scanner. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978Google Scholar
- 8.Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology, opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing House, 1976Google Scholar
- 13.O’Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, et al. Health technology assessment: lessons learned from around the world. An overview. Value Health 2009 June; 12 Suppl. 2: S1–5Google Scholar
- 18.US Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership. Recovery Act allocates $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html [Accessed 2009 Jul 16]Google Scholar
- 19.Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/index.html [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
- 21.AWBZ: General Exceptional Medical Expenses Act [factsheet; online]. Available from URL: http://www.euraxess.nl/documents/awbz.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 11]
- 22.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Expenditure by funding source and transaction type [online]. Available from URL: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RFIN1 [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 23.Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union [observatory studies series no. 11]. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health systems and Policies, 2008Google Scholar
- 24.Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. Euro Observer 2009; 11 (1): 1–4 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/80335/EuroObserver_spring2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 25.Exter A, Hermans H, Dosljak M, et al. Health care systems in transition: Netherlands. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health systems and Policies, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/95136/E84949.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 26.Klatt I. Understanding the Canadian health care system. J Financial Serv Prof 2000; 54: 42–51Google Scholar
- 27.Canada Health Act of dy1985, C. 6, s. 1Google Scholar
- 28.Paris V, Docteur E. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursment policies in Canada. Paris: OECD, 2007. Report no.:DELSA/HEA/HWP (2006) 4Google Scholar
- 31.Medicare Australia. About Medicare Australia [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/about/whatwedo/pbs.jsp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 32.Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. PBAC outcomes: outcomes of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee meetings [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-outcomes_full.htm [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 33.Glenngård AH, Hjalte F, Svensson M, et al. Health systems in transition: Sweden. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2005Google Scholar
- 40.Tolley K, Postma M. Pharmacoeconomics and market access in Europe: case studies in Scotland and the Netherlands. ISPOR Connections 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/News/articles/Oct06/economic_eval.asp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 41.Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondsraad). Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council, 1999 Mar 25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/PE_guidelines_english_Netherlands.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]Google Scholar
- 43.Polsky MJ, Stolk EA, Brouwer WBF. The use and impact of HTA in decision making in the Netherlands. Euro Observer 2009; 11 (1): 7–9Google Scholar
- 45.Scottish Medicines Consortium [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org/smc/CCC_FirstPage.jsp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
- 46.Scottish Medicines Consortium annual report 2008 Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/smc/files/NHS%20SMC%20AR%2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
- 47.Zentner A, Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technology Assessment 2005; 1: Doc09Google Scholar
- 50.Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2009Google Scholar
- 54.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. Breast Cancer 2008; 12 Suppl. 1: s16–27Google Scholar
- 55.Federal/provincial/territorial Ministerial Task Force on the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National pharmaceuticals strategy progress report. Ottawa (ON): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2006Google Scholar
- 61.Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar