Author(s)
Kovács S1, Bendes R2, Kaló Z3, Kolasa K4, Hren R5, Tesar T6, Reckers-Droog V7, Brouwer W8, Federici C9, Torbica A10, Drummond M11, Zemplényi A12
1Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary, 2Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, PE, Hungary, 31. Semmelweis University, Center for Health Technology Assessment; 2. Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary, 4Kozminski University, Warszawa, Poland, 5University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6Union Health Insurance Fund, Bratislava, Slovakia, 7PHMR Ltd, Rotterdam, ZH, Netherlands, 8Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 9SDA Bocconi School of Management, MILANO, MI, Italy, 10Bocconi University, Milan, MI, Italy, 11University of York, York, YOR, UK, 121) University of Pécs, Faculty of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacoeconomics 2) Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
OBJECTIVES Because of their relatively limited resources for health care, Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are typically late adopters of new medical devices (MDs). This provides an opportunity to learn from experiences of early technology adopter countries in Western Europe and transfer knowledge about health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes. Implementation of CED schemes is limited in CEE countries, which are usually late adopters of new health technologies. Our aim was to put forward recommendations on how HTA bodies and payer organizations in CEE countries can apply CED to reduce decision uncertainty for reimbursement of MDs from public funding, with a particular focus on transferring the structure and data from CED schemes in early technology adopter countries. This research was conducted as part of the EU funded COMED H2020 project. METHODS We conducted structured interviews relating to practices and feasibility of transferring CED schemes. Moreover, COMED consortium members developed decision alternatives and recommendations for CED implementation in CEE countries. The draft typology was reviewed in a focus group discussion (N=7) and subsequently validated within a wider group of CEE experts (N=31) in an online workshop. RESULTS Our results indicated that transferability assessment is needed in case of 1) joint implementation of a CED scheme; 2) transferring the structure of an existing CED scheme to a CEE country; 3) reimbursement decisions that are linked to outcomes of an ongoing CED scheme in another country and 4) real-world evidence transferred from completed CED schemes in another country. CONCLUSIONS Efficient use of available resources can be improved by adequately transferring evidence and policy tools from early technology adopter countries. Recommendations outlined in this study can help late adopter countries decide what implementation strategy for CED schemes is feasible and how best to address decision uncertainty around MDs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2021-05, ISPOR 2021, Montreal, Canada
Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 5, S1 (May 2021)
Code
PNS77
Topic
Health Technology Assessment, Medical Technologies
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Medical Devices
Disease
No Specific Disease
