Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia.

Kim, H; Liew, D; Goodall, S

Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia.

Kim, H Liew, D Goodall, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Cambridge University Press
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2022, 38, (1), pp. 1-9
Issue Date:: 2022-06-15

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download div-class-title-current-issues-in-health-technology-assessment-of-cancer-therapies-a-survey-of-stakeholders-and-opinion-leaders-in-australia-div.pdfAdobe PDF (497.42 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Kim, H
dc.contributor.author	Liew, D
dc.contributor.author	Goodall, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6611-6565
dc.date.accessioned	2022-10-27T05:00:39Z
dc.date.available	2022-10-27T05:00:39Z
dc.date.issued	2022-06-15
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2022, 38, (1), pp. 1-9
dc.identifier.issn	0266-4623
dc.identifier.issn	1471-6348
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162761
dc.description.abstract	OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to find ways of bridging the gap in opinions concerning health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement submission between manufacturers and payers to avoid access delays for patients of vital medicines such as oncology drugs. This was done by investigating differences and similarities of opinion among key stakeholders in Australia. METHODS: The survey comprised of nine sections: background demographics, general statements on HTA, clinical claim, extrapolations, quality of life, costs and health resource utilization, agreements, decision making, and capability/capacity. Responses to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: There were ninety-seven respondents in total, thirty-seven from the public sector (academia/government) and sixty from the private sector (industry/consultancies). Private and public sector respondents had similar views on clinical claims. They were divided when it came to extrapolation of survival data and costs and health resource utilization. However, they generally agreed that rebates are useful, outcomes-based agreements are difficult to implement, managed entry schemes are required when data are limited, and willingness to pay is higher in cancer compared to other therapeutic areas. They also agreed that training mostly takes place through on the job training and that guideline updates were a least favored opportunity for continued training. CONCLUSIONS: Private sector respondents favor methods that reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to the public sector respondents. There still exist a number of challenges for HTA in oncology and many research opportunities as a result of this study.
dc.format	Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Cambridge University Press
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1017/S0266462322000368
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1402 Applied Economics
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services
dc.subject.mesh	Cost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subject.mesh	Decision Making
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Technology Assessment, Biomedical
dc.subject.mesh	Cost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subject.mesh	Decision Making
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Technology Assessment, Biomedical
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Decision Making
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Cost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subject.mesh	Technology Assessment, Biomedical
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	38
utslib.location.activity	England
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1402 Applied Economics
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-10-27T05:00:34Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	38
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to find ways of bridging the gap in opinions concerning health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement submission between manufacturers and payers to avoid access delays for patients of vital medicines such as oncology drugs. This was done by investigating differences and similarities of opinion among key stakeholders in Australia. METHODS: The survey comprised of nine sections: background demographics, general statements on HTA, clinical claim, extrapolations, quality of life, costs and health resource utilization, agreements, decision making, and capability/capacity. Responses to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: There were ninety-seven respondents in total, thirty-seven from the public sector (academia/government) and sixty from the private sector (industry/consultancies). Private and public sector respondents had similar views on clinical claims. They were divided when it came to extrapolation of survival data and costs and health resource utilization. However, they generally agreed that rebates are useful, outcomes-based agreements are difficult to implement, managed entry schemes are required when data are limited, and willingness to pay is higher in cancer compared to other therapeutic areas. They also agreed that training mostly takes place through on the job training and that guideline updates were a least favored opportunity for continued training. CONCLUSIONS: Private sector respondents favor methods that reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to the public sector respondents. There still exist a number of challenges for HTA in oncology and many research opportunities as a result of this study.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162761