Heterogeneous Recommendations for Oncology Products Among Different HTA Systems: A Comparative Assessment

  • Szymon Jarosławski
  • Eve Hanna
  • Monique Dabbous
  • Lylia Chachoua
  • Mondher ToumiEmail author
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 213)


Rising budget constraints and demands for healthcare services create additional complexity within the decision process for resource allocation. Innovations and scientific progress have been shown to be key drivers of the increase in healthcare expenditures (1). In the context of rising medical care costs and limited resources, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was developed as a tool to inform decision-making and to provide the rationalization behind these decisions driving resource allocation and spending for health technology products. Furthermore, HTA agencies make the decision-making process more transparent. The HTA approach involves evaluating multiple aspects of a new product’s value in order to maximize health gain provided within the setting of limited resources.


Health technology assessment HAS IQWiG/G-BA NICE Cost-effectiveness 


  1. Allen N, Liberti L, Walker SR et al (2017) A comparison of reimbursement recommendations by European HTA agencies: is there opportunity for further alignment? Front Pharmacol 8:384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basch E, Geoghegan C, Coons S et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and us regulatory review: Perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncol 1:375–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A et al (2010) Biomarkers and surrogate end points–the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chabot I, Rocchi A (2014) Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 6:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gibson E, Koblbauer I, Begum N et al (2017) Modelling the survival outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs in economic evaluations: a systematic approach to data analysis and extrapolation. Pharmacoeconomics 35:1257–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jarosławski S, Toumi M (2011a) Design of patient access schemes in the UK: influence of health technology assessment by the national institute for health and clinical excellence. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jarosławski S, Toumi M (2011b) Market access agreements for pharmaceuticals in Europe: diversity of approaches and underlying concepts. BMC Health Serv Res 11:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim C, Prasad V (2015) Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of us food and drug administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med 175:1992–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Latimer N, Ramsey S, Briggs A (2017) Cost–effectiveness models for innovative oncology treatments: How different methodological approaches can be used to estimate the value of novel therapies. ISPOR, Boston, USGoogle Scholar
  10. Lexchin J, Mintzes B (2008) Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care 14:581–588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Massetti M, Aballea S, Videau Y et al (2015) A comparison of HAS & NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments. J Mark Access Health Policy 3:24966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Neumann PJ, Bliss SK, Chambers JD (2012) Therapies for advanced cancers pose a special challenge for health technology assessment organizations in many countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 31:700–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nicod E (2014) Why are there differences in HTA recommendations across countries? A systematic comparison of HTA decision processes for a sample of orphan drugs in four countries. Value Health 17:A540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nicod E, Kanavos P (2012) Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy 108:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Othus M, Bansal A, Koepl L et al (2017) Accounting for cured patients in cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 20:705–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pomedli S (2010) HTA and access to cancer medicines. EuroObserver 12:7–9Google Scholar
  17. Schwarzer R, Siebert U (2009) Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Svensson S, Menkes DB, Lexchin J (2013) Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med 173:611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Toumi M (2017) Introduction to Market Access for Pharmaceuticals. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  21. Toumi M, Motrunich A, Millier A et al (2017) Analysis of health economics assessment reports for pharmaceuticals in France—understanding the underlying philosophy of CEESP assessment. J Market Access Health Policy 5:1344088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Young KE, Soussi I, Toumi M (2017) The perverse impact of external reference pricing (ERP): a comparison of orphan drugs affordability in 12 European countries. A call for policy change. J Market Access Health Policy 5:1369817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zagadailov E, Fine M, Shields A (2013) Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits 6:264–274PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szymon Jarosławski
    • 1
  • Eve Hanna
    • 1
  • Monique Dabbous
    • 1
  • Lylia Chachoua
    • 2
  • Mondher Toumi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Public Health Department, Research Unit EA 3279Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Market Access SocietyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations