Abstract

Background

The value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology are central to policy decisions regarding coverage with, without, or only in research and managed entry (or risk-sharing) agreements.

Objectives

We aim to outline the key principles of what assessments are needed to inform “only in research” (OIR) or “approval with research” (AWR) recommendations, in addition to approval or rejection.

Methods

We developed a comprehensive algorithm to inform the sequence of assessments and judgments that lead to different types of guidance: OIR, AWR, Approve, or Reject. This algorithm identifies the order in which assessments might be made, how similar guidance might be arrived at through different combinations of considerations, and when guidance might change.

Results

The key principles are whether the technology is expected to be cost-effective; whether the technology has significant irrecoverable costs; whether additional research is needed; whether research is possible with approval and whether there are opportunity costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered; and whether there are effective price reductions. Determining expected cost-effectiveness is only a first step. In addition to AWR for technologies expected to be cost-effective and OIR for those not expected to be cost-effective, there are other important circumstances when OIR should be considered.

Conclusions

These principles demonstrate that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Even when research is possible with approval, OIR may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs.