Our goal was to estimate the relative importance assigned to health technology assessment (HTA) criteria by stakeholders involved in the HTA process. HTA is an increasingly common framework used in the appraisal of drugs for public reimbursement. It identifies clinical, economic, social, and organizational criteria to be considered. The criteria can vary across jurisdictions and are typically appraised by multidisciplinary expert committees. Guidance on the relative weighing of criteria is often absent.
We elicited stakeholders’ preferences using a single-scenario discrete choice experiment and a best-worst scaling model with conviction scores to assess the weights assigned to selected criteria by HTA stakeholders. We recruited 111 HTA stakeholders across multiple jurisdictions, including members of expert committees, clinical and economic experts, patients, and public payer representatives. Each judged twelve hypothetical cancer drug profiles for suitability for public funding and identified which characteristics were best and worst. In addition to standard discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling models, we estimated a hybrid model to obtain a ranking of criteria by importance they played in the appraisal.
A strong clinical benefit proved the most important criterion, followed by cost considerations, presence of adverse events, and availability of other treatments. The importance of clinical benefit was moderated by unmet need, adverse events, and number of patients.
Policymakers might want to consider providing an explicit weighing scheme, or moving to a 2-stage selection process with an assessment of the quality of clinical evidence as a gatekeeping step for a full HTA review.