Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework

Abstract

Objective To identify and analyze the criteria, approaches, and conceptual frameworks, used for national/international priority setting. Data sources We performed a search of the main biomedical databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Cochrane), and we reviewed assessment agency websites, among other sources. Study design An systematic review of the literature was carried out. Data collection Eligibility criteria for inclusion were based on set of predefined criteria. Systematic reviews and/or qualitative studies (interviews, surveys, expert consensus, etc) that aimed to identify prioritization criteria or develop general operational frameworks for the selection of health priorities were included. A critical analysis is made of all the aspects that may be useful for any public body that intends to establish priorities in health. Principal findings We found that there are no standardized criteria for priority setting, although common trends have been identified regarding key elements. Eight key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality and uncertainties of the regarding evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) justice and ethics; and 8) overall context. Conclusions Our review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritization framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organizations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Identification and selection of health technologies for assessment by agencies in support of reimbursement decisions in Latin America

“…For these reasons, the need to establish priorities for which technologies to be assessed is neither a new nor minor issue for the HTA community. Although there are some common aspects in the prioritization processes developed over time by HTA agencies around the globe, no two countries, agencies, or health systems do this in the same way, and the same criteria are not used in all cases (6;8;9). This situation is likely attributable to different health contexts that inform the process and the components of the prioritization mechanism in accordance with the values and characteristics of the health system.…”

Mecanismos de identificación y priorización de las tecnologías sanitarias a ser evaluadas por las Agencias de ETESA para decisiones de cobertura en Latino America

“…Aunque hay algunos elementos relativamente comunes al proceso de priorización, desarrollados a lo largo del tiempo por las agencias de ETESA a nivel global, no hay dos países, agencias o sistemas de salud en el mundo que lo realicen de una única o igual manera; ni tampoco utilizan en todos los casos los mismos criterios. 6,8,9 . Esta situación probablemente se deba a diferencias en los contextos sanitarios que llevan a considerar procesos y contenidos del sistema de priorización acordes con los valores y las características de sus sistemas de salud.…”