A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE MULTIPLE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA

Author(s)

Lu CY1, Ward R21Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA, 2University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

OBJECTIVES: Personalized medicine is the use of diagnostic testing, including genetic testing, to refine patient selection for the use of high cost procedures, devices, and medicines. This study compares the processes for making coverage decisions on multiple technologies between UK and Australia. METHODS: Comparative study of assessments published by UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Australia’s Commonwealth Department of Health. RESULTS: The coverage of medical procedures, devices, and pharmaceuticals has been assessed separately by different committees using conventional approaches of economic evaluation in both UK and Australia. In 2005, NICE introduced a process to assess multiple technologies (medicines, devices, medical procedures), such as several drugs for the same condition, or one drug for several conditions. By contrast, Australia recently introduced an integrated assessment specifically for multiple, co-dependent technologies (‘personalized medicine’ products), such as medicines and their companion diagnostic tests. Health technologies are co-dependent if their use needs to be combined to achieve or enhance the intended clinical effect of either technology (e.g. gefitinib for patients with tested positive for an activating mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in tumor). The co-dependent technology assessment process was established in response to concerns that 1) only one technology in the co-dependent is reimbursed (e.g. a medicine is covered by the drug formulary while the companion test to determine responders is not covered by Medicare), and 2) the assessment of a co-dependent technology should consider the benefits and costs of their joint use, as distinct to the benefits and costs of each technology alone. Analysis is underway to compare the timeliness and recommendationsfor personalized medicine products between UK and Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Important lessons are to be learned from the existing experiences as health technologies are increasingly used either sequentially or simultaneously in the continued development of personalized medicine.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2012-11, ISPOR Europe 2012, Berlin, Germany

Value in Health, Vol. 15, No. 7 (November 2012)

Code

PHP155

Topic

Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Decision & Deliberative Processes

Disease

Multiple Diseases

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×