Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries

Health technology assessment (HTA) systems across countries vary in the way they are set up, according to their role and based on how funding decisions are reached. Our objective was to study the characteristics of these systems and their likely impact on the funding of technologies undergoing HTA. Based on a literature review, we created a conceptual framework that captures key operating features of HTA systems. We used this framework to map current HTA activities across 32 countries in the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia. Evidence was collected through a systematic search of competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Primary data collection through expert consultation validated our findings and further complemented the analysis. Sixty-three HTA bodies were identified. Most have a national scope (76%), are independent (73%), have an advisory role (52%), evaluate pharmaceuticals predominantly or exclusively (76%), assess health technologies based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness (73%) and involve various stakeholders as members of the HTA committee (94%) and/or through external consultation (76%). The majority of HTA outcomes are not legally binding (81%). Although all study countries implement HTA, the way it fits into decision-making, negotiation processes, and coverage and funding decisions differs significantly across countries. HTA is a dynamic and transformative process and there is a need for transparency to investigate whether evidence-based information influences coverage decisions.

Automated summary

Health technology assessment (HTA) systems vary across countries in terms of set up, scope, independence, evaluation focus, stakeholder involvement, and legal binding of outcomes. While all study countries implement HTA, the way it influences decision-making and funding decisions differs significantly. Transparency is needed to investigate the impact of evidence-based information on coverage decisions.