VALUATION OF THE CARE PATHWAY BY THE TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE (TC) (HAUTE AUTORITE DE SANTE): A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF TC OPINIONS FROM JANUARY 2023 TO DECEMBER 2025
Author(s)
Karine El Melijeh, MSc1, Melanie Chartier, MSc2, HERVE LEMASSON, Sr., MA2, Cyrielle Cardona, MSc2, Marion Monin, MSc2, Isabelle Belin, MSc2, Anais Paris, pharmD2, Angelique Ruze, pharmD2.
1Paris-Saclay University, Orsay, France, 2Bristol Myers Squibb, Rueil Malmaison, France.
1Paris-Saclay University, Orsay, France, 2Bristol Myers Squibb, Rueil Malmaison, France.
OBJECTIVES: To document care pathway valuation across Transparency Committee (TC) opinions issued by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) following the introduction of a dedicated care pathway-related chapter since January 2023.
METHODS: All TC opinions across therapeutic areas from January 2023 to December 2025 were screened. In each opinion, the chapter "care pathway" was analyzed. Key HTA criteria were collected: Clinical Benefit (SMR), Clinical Added Value (ASMR), Public Health Benefit (ISP), medical need and clinical data. Care pathway valorization was assessed through ASMR and ISP levels and wording.
RESULTS: Among the 496 TC opinions extracted, 438 (88%) included a care pathway chapter of which 310 (62%) featured a fully developed chapter. Among those, 173 (35%) provided a formal conclusion: 60 reported an anticipated care pathway impact (19%), 69 no impact (22%), and 44 insufficient or unavailable data to conclude (14%). Among the 60 opinions reporting an anticipated care pathway impact, 37 (62%) had a positive, 16 (27%) a negative, and 7 (12%) an undetermined impact. Among the 37 positive impact opinions, 41% had a positive ISP with the care pathway systematically mentioned in its wording. ASMR levels IV and V predominated (43% and 36%). In 43% of positive impact opinions, the ASMR wording referred to the care pathway.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the integration of care pathway chapters since January 2023, this component remains poorly documented in TC assessments. The care pathway impact is differently valued in ASMR or ISP. The role of care pathway assessment could be strengthened by better defining the type and nature of data expected by the TC.
METHODS: All TC opinions across therapeutic areas from January 2023 to December 2025 were screened. In each opinion, the chapter "care pathway" was analyzed. Key HTA criteria were collected: Clinical Benefit (SMR), Clinical Added Value (ASMR), Public Health Benefit (ISP), medical need and clinical data. Care pathway valorization was assessed through ASMR and ISP levels and wording.
RESULTS: Among the 496 TC opinions extracted, 438 (88%) included a care pathway chapter of which 310 (62%) featured a fully developed chapter. Among those, 173 (35%) provided a formal conclusion: 60 reported an anticipated care pathway impact (19%), 69 no impact (22%), and 44 insufficient or unavailable data to conclude (14%). Among the 60 opinions reporting an anticipated care pathway impact, 37 (62%) had a positive, 16 (27%) a negative, and 7 (12%) an undetermined impact. Among the 37 positive impact opinions, 41% had a positive ISP with the care pathway systematically mentioned in its wording. ASMR levels IV and V predominated (43% and 36%). In 43% of positive impact opinions, the ASMR wording referred to the care pathway.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the integration of care pathway chapters since January 2023, this component remains poorly documented in TC assessments. The care pathway impact is differently valued in ASMR or ISP. The role of care pathway assessment could be strengthened by better defining the type and nature of data expected by the TC.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA308
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas