Linking hta to priority setting framework concepts and values
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 18

Linking HTA to priority setting – framework, concepts, and values PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Linking HTA to priority setting – framework, concepts, and values. Professor Ole F. Norheim Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Bergen, Norway. Drummond et al IJTAHC 2008. Framework: HTA in Norway. Health policy/ priority setting. HTA. Appraisal. Guidelines.

Download Presentation

Linking HTA to priority setting – framework, concepts, and values

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Linking hta to priority setting framework concepts and values

Linking HTA to priority setting – framework, concepts, and values

Professor Ole F. Norheim

Department of Public Health and Primary Care

University of Bergen, Norway

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Drummond et al ijtahc 2008

Drummond et al IJTAHC 2008

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Framework hta in norway

Framework: HTA in Norway

Health policy/

priority setting

HTA

Appraisal

Guidelines

Clinical research

Assessment of

evidence

Clinical practice

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Concepts

Concepts

  • EBM: Evidence based medicine

  • CER: Comparative effectiveness research

  • HTA: Health technology assessment

  • AFR: Accountability for reasonableness

  • Partly overlapping aims and potential use:

     coverage decisions

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Accountability for reasonableness daniels sabin 2002 2008

Accountability for reasonableness(Daniels & Sabin, 2002/2008)

  • Publicity

  • Relevant reasons

  • Revision and complaints

  • Institutionalization

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Common values in ebm cer hta afr

Common values in EBM, CER, HTA, AFR

  • Transparency

  • Explicit about reasons

  • Unbiased, impartial

  • Open too critical review

  • Institutionalized processes

    • Except AfR

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Norwegian council for priority setting in health care

Norwegian Council for Priority Setting in Health Care

  • As recommended in Lønning II

  • Standing committee

    • Served by Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services

    • Chaired by the head of Norwegian Directorate of Health

  • Committed to stakeholder involvement, publicity and accountability for reasonableness

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Linking hta to priority setting framework concepts and values

New guidelines and new principles for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Norway: differentiated risk thresholds according to age(HDir, 2009)

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Linking priority setting to hta

Linking priority setting to HTA

Health policy/

priority setting

HTA

Identify

consequences

Guidelines

Clinical research

Assess

evidence

Clinical practice

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Background

Background

  • Low risk thresholds

    • Risk of ”medicalization” of healthy people

    • Resource use, priority setting

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Risk table

Risk table


Priority relevant recommendations

Priority-relevant recommendations:

  • Medication for the following groups:

  • 40-49 years: if 10-year risk of cardiovascular death is ≥ 1%

  • 50-59 years: if 10-year risk of cardiovascular death is ≥ 5%

  • 60-69 years: if 10-year risk of cardiovascular death is ≥ 10%

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Priority table

Priority table


Impact on distribution

Impact on distribution

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Process

Process

  • Independent review of evidence on

    • Effectiveness

    • Cost-effectiveness

  • Independent guidelines development process

    • GRADE-system

    • Explicit on reasons

      • Medical

      • Ethical

      • Political

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Securing legitimacy for hard choices

Securing legitimacy for hard choices

  • Advice from Norwegian Council for Priority Setting in Health Care on

    • Risk differentiation

    • Risk thresholds

  • Wide hearing process with key stakeholders

U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


Implementation

Implementation

  • Guidance linked to coverage decisions

    • (But less systematic and transparent process)

  • Too early to evaluate

  • U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


    Linking priority setting to hta1

    Linking priority setting to HTA

    Health policy/

    priority setting

    HTA

    Identify

    consequences

    Guidelines

    Clinical research

    Assess

    evidence

    Clinical practice

    U n i v e r s i t y o f B e r g e n


  • Login