Assessing the Value of Digital Health Tools: A Comparison of Methods Used by the PHTI and NICE

OBJECTIVES: In 2024, the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI) began evaluating the clinical and economic value of digital health tools (DHTs) in the US. Since 2009, DHTs have been assessed in England through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Evaluation Program (MTEP). Conducting a formal comparison of these two assessment programs could uncover potential synergies and translatable insights applicable to both systems. This study aimed to compare the health technology assessment (HTA) methods used by NICE and PHTI for evaluating DHTs.

METHODS: Adapting the framework for evaluating and comparing HTA processes from Drummond et al (2008), a targeted literature review of public documents was conducted on core HTA dimensions used by NICE and PHTI, including the structure of HTA programs, methods, processes, and use in decision-making.

RESULTS: Key similarities identified included horizon scanning to identify impactful technologies warranting assessment, evaluation of comparative clinical efficacy and economic impact, multiple opportunities for stakeholder and manufacturer engagement, and a shared goal to improve health outcomes and recommend cost-effective technologies. Key areas of contrast were also noted: MTEP promoted faster uptake of new technologies, whereas PHTI produced evidence-based reports to guide stakeholder decision-making; NICE relied on manufacturer submissions, whilst PHTI conducted its own analyses; NICE conducted cost-effectiveness and cost-consequence analyses, whereas PHTI assessed the budget impact of the technology and published threshold price ranges at which the DHT would produce cost savings compared with standard of care.

CONCLUSIONS: Robust methods for assessing the value of DHTs can support efforts to manage healthcare expenditure and ensure value for money. As PHTI increases its prominence and influence, understanding the similarities and differences of its approach compared with the well-established processes used by NICE may enable technology developers to apply translatable insights from both assessment processes to enhance their market access strategies.