Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.

ObjectivesThis study's intent was to determine if a qualitative benefit risk framework could be used or modified to further enable Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) of prescription medicine recommendations. The purpose of this research was to understand Canadian Health Technology Agency assessors past experiences and insights to inform any modifications to the Universal Methodology for Benefit−Risk Assessment (UMBRA) qualitative framework. The UMBRA framework consists of an eight-step process, used during the assessment phase, to aid in decision making and dissemination.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted and included a purposeful, criterion-based sample of eight assessors who had participated in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or HTR for prescription medicines or in qualitative decision-making frameworks.ResultsParticipant interviews lead to four common themes: “adoption of a qualitative benefit risk framework,” “data (either too much or not enough),” “importance of incorporating stakeholder values,” and “feasibility of the UMBRA framework.” Methodological challenges with HTR were highlighted including the lack of clinical outcome data and the ability to compare clinically relevant meaningful differences. The implementation of a ranking or weighing process found within the UMBRA framework was not favored by half of the participants.ConclusionsResearch participants did not consider all steps of the UMBRA framework to be transferable to the assessment phase of HTR given the need for simplicity, resource efficiency, and stakeholder input throughout the process. The assessor experiences and insights and the resultant key themes can be used in future research to aid in the development of a qualitative recommendation framework for HTR.

New York City quickly became the epicenter of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in early March of 2020. While hospitals were aware of the potential of COVID-19, the volume of critically ill patients that flooded the hospitals in the New York City area was clearly not anticipated. Hospital staff worked quickly to create COVID-19-free areas, but were overcome with the volume of COVID-positive critically ill patients. Many newly admitted patients required respiratory support with mechanical ventilation. As Governor Cuomo issued executive orders to stay at home in mid-March, some patients were afraid to go into hospitals despite symptoms of respiratory distress. Once these patients came to the hospital, they were often critically ill. Emergency departments and intensive care units filled rapidly, overwhelming staff and equipment needs with such things as pumps, dialysis machines, medications, and personal protective equipment. Plans for the day were disrupted with frequent rapid response calls and the need for additional beds. Key issues that confronted the COVID-19 response in critical care units at NYU Langone Health included communication, patient and staff safety.