Francine Brinkhuis, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Hubert G M Leufkens, Kirti Narsai, Wim G Goettsch, Hendrika A van den Ham
{"title":"Comparing harmonization in medicines regulation and health technology assessment in Europe: lessons for the EU HTA regulation.","authors":"Francine Brinkhuis, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Hubert G M Leufkens, Kirti Narsai, Wim G Goettsch, Hendrika A van den Ham","doi":"10.1017/S0266462326104267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The European Union (EU) has long pursued harmonization in medicines regulation and, more recently, in health technology assessment (HTA). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the EU HTA Regulation (EU HTAR) represent key milestones in these respective trajectories. This study compares the harmonization trajectories of EU medicines regulation and EU HTA to identify lessons relevant for EU HTAR implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a multi-method qualitative approach combining a narrative literature review with online focus groups involving eighteen regulatory and policy experts. The review explored the historical development of harmonization in both policy areas. The focus-group analysis examined perspectives on collaboration, harmonization dynamics, and implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both policy areas moved from national arrangements and voluntary cooperation toward more formal EU-level structures. Medicines regulation developed earlier and resulted in more centralized procedures and binding EU-wide authorization decisions. EU HTA retains greater national responsibility for value judgments, pricing, and reimbursement. The two areas also differ in the scope and standardization of assessments. In both trajectories, harmonization was shaped by trust, willingness to collaborate, capacity differences, and legal and procedural contexts. Participants emphasized the importance of stepwise implementation, work sharing, and sustained dialogue, while anticipating variation in national JCA uptake and impact.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experience from EU medicines regulation highlights the importance of building trust and adapting collaboration to differences in national maturity and priorities. Harmonization should develop gradually through learning and refinement across diverse legal and procedural contexts. These lessons may support EU HTAR implementation and further development.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"42 1","pages":"e91"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462326104267","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The European Union (EU) has long pursued harmonization in medicines regulation and, more recently, in health technology assessment (HTA). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the EU HTA Regulation (EU HTAR) represent key milestones in these respective trajectories. This study compares the harmonization trajectories of EU medicines regulation and EU HTA to identify lessons relevant for EU HTAR implementation.
Methods: We used a multi-method qualitative approach combining a narrative literature review with online focus groups involving eighteen regulatory and policy experts. The review explored the historical development of harmonization in both policy areas. The focus-group analysis examined perspectives on collaboration, harmonization dynamics, and implementation.
Results: Both policy areas moved from national arrangements and voluntary cooperation toward more formal EU-level structures. Medicines regulation developed earlier and resulted in more centralized procedures and binding EU-wide authorization decisions. EU HTA retains greater national responsibility for value judgments, pricing, and reimbursement. The two areas also differ in the scope and standardization of assessments. In both trajectories, harmonization was shaped by trust, willingness to collaborate, capacity differences, and legal and procedural contexts. Participants emphasized the importance of stepwise implementation, work sharing, and sustained dialogue, while anticipating variation in national JCA uptake and impact.
Conclusions: Experience from EU medicines regulation highlights the importance of building trust and adapting collaboration to differences in national maturity and priorities. Harmonization should develop gradually through learning and refinement across diverse legal and procedural contexts. These lessons may support EU HTAR implementation and further development.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.