Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?

Q2 Medicine
Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2024-11-18 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.3390/jmahp12040028
Sandro Gsteiger, Heiner C Bucher, James Ryan, Jörg Ruof
{"title":"Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?","authors":"Sandro Gsteiger, Heiner C Bucher, James Ryan, Jörg Ruof","doi":"10.3390/jmahp12040028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many countries around the world use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement and pricing decisions. HTA is often split into two steps, called assessment and appraisal. While the term HTA itself has been defined by international consortia, there is heterogeneity in the way different stakeholders use the terms assessment and appraisal. This creates ambiguity regarding which activities are included in technology assessment. With the new EU HTA Regulation, the HTA community should urgently seek to clarify the distinction between assessment and appraisal, as the regulation aims to centralize the clinical part of technology assessment at the European level. Failure to clarify this terminology will put the ambition of the regulation such as increased efficiency and reduction in duplication at risk. In this article, we argue that the distinction between assessment and appraisal should be seen as a science/value dichotomy. We discuss the transition from centralized assessment activities to country-level appraisal, which should culminate in a categorization of the overall added benefit in a local context. Finally, we touch on the important dimension of uncertainty always present in medical decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"12 4","pages":"369-377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587063/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12040028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many countries around the world use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement and pricing decisions. HTA is often split into two steps, called assessment and appraisal. While the term HTA itself has been defined by international consortia, there is heterogeneity in the way different stakeholders use the terms assessment and appraisal. This creates ambiguity regarding which activities are included in technology assessment. With the new EU HTA Regulation, the HTA community should urgently seek to clarify the distinction between assessment and appraisal, as the regulation aims to centralize the clinical part of technology assessment at the European level. Failure to clarify this terminology will put the ambition of the regulation such as increased efficiency and reduction in duplication at risk. In this article, we argue that the distinction between assessment and appraisal should be seen as a science/value dichotomy. We discuss the transition from centralized assessment activities to country-level appraisal, which should culminate in a categorization of the overall added benefit in a local context. Finally, we touch on the important dimension of uncertainty always present in medical decision making.

技术评估与技术鉴定--如何加强欧盟 HTA 的科学/价值二分法?
世界上许多国家都使用卫生技术评估 (HTA) 为报销和定价决策提供信息。HTA 通常分为两个步骤,即评估和鉴定。虽然 HTA 一词本身已由国际财团定义,但不同利益相关者使用评估和鉴定这两个词的方式却不尽相同。这就造成了技术评估中包括哪些活动的模糊性。随着新的欧盟 HTA 法规的出台,HTA 团体应立即澄清评估与鉴定之间的区别,因为该法规旨在将技术评估的临床部分集中到欧洲层面。如果不对这一术语加以澄清,该法规的目标(如提高效率和减少重复)将面临风险。在本文中,我们认为评估与鉴定之间的区别应被视为科学/价值的二分法。我们讨论了从集中评估活动向国家级评估的过渡,国家级评估应最终对当地的总体附加效益进行分类。最后,我们谈到了医疗决策中始终存在的不确定性这一重要方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信