PD193 Submission Processes And Requirements For Health Technology Assessment In Australia, Canada, England, France, And Germany

Introduction As health technology assessment (HTA) bodies introduce more rigorous requirements, the submission process is becoming increasingly diverse between countries. This study assessed the HTA submission processes and requirements in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany. This helps identify where efficiencies can be made in the global market access strategy, such as when to submit HTA dossiers. Methods A pragmatic review and desk-based research were conducted in November 2023. Published articles, HTA guidelines, process documents, conference abstracts, and white papers were reviewed to identify country-specific processes with implications for market access strategy. Where available, information was extracted about the general submission process and stakeholders involved (including regulatory, HTA, and pricing authorities), clinical evidence requirements, and pharmacoeconomic evidence requirements for HTA submission. Comparisons of the median time from marketing authorization to HTA decision within each country allowed the identification of efficiencies in individual HTA submission processes. The key findings and between-country differences were summarized narratively. Results The review identified several areas with implications for market access strategy. The median HTA review time was shortest in Australia (125 days) and longest in England (266 days). Australia and Canada have both sequential and parallel regulatory and HTA processes. The median time taken from regulatory approval to HTA recommendation was faster with the parallel process than with the sequential process in both countries. All countries required comparative clinical evidence within the indication. The weight placed on pharmacoeconomic evidence varied between countries. In Germany, economic evaluation has yet to play a real role. Requirements for additional information after HTA submission occurred within all HTA bodies. Conclusions HTA processes in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany differ from one another. This will likely affect the market access strategy for health technology developers. Similar requirements allow efficiencies in the preparation of submission documentation. Future research should investigate the impact of the European Union HTA regulation on market access and how this could affect strategic decision-making.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s026646232400415x
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PD193 Submission Processes And Requirements For Health Technology Assessment In Australia, Canada, England, France, And Germany

Charlotte Graham, Stuart Mealing, K. Watts, Emily Gregg
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

PD193 Submission Processes And Requirements For Health Technology Assessment In Australia, Canada, England, France, And Germany

Charlotte Graham, Stuart Mealing, K. Watts, Emily Gregg
article en

Abstract

Introduction As health technology assessment (HTA) bodies introduce more rigorous requirements, the submission process is becoming increasingly diverse between countries. This study assessed the HTA submission processes and requirements in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany. This helps identify where efficiencies can be made in the global market access strategy, such as when to submit HTA dossiers. Methods A pragmatic review and desk-based research were conducted in November 2023. Published articles, HTA guidelines, process documents, conference abstracts, and white papers were reviewed to identify country-specific processes with implications for market access strategy. Where available, information was extracted about the general submission process and stakeholders involved (including regulatory, HTA, and pricing authorities), clinical evidence requirements, and pharmacoeconomic evidence requirements for HTA submission. Comparisons of the median time from marketing authorization to HTA decision within each country allowed the identification of efficiencies in individual HTA submission processes. The key findings and between-country differences were summarized narratively. Results The review identified several areas with implications for market access strategy. The median HTA review time was shortest in Australia (125 days) and longest in England (266 days). Australia and Canada have both sequential and parallel regulatory and HTA processes. The median time taken from regulatory approval to HTA recommendation was faster with the parallel process than with the sequential process in both countries. All countries required comparative clinical evidence within the indication. The weight placed on pharmacoeconomic evidence varied between countries. In Germany, economic evaluation has yet to play a real role. Requirements for additional information after HTA submission occurred within all HTA bodies. Conclusions HTA processes in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany differ from one another. This will likely affect the market access strategy for health technology developers. Similar requirements allow efficiencies in the preparation of submission documentation. Future research should investigate the impact of the European Union HTA regulation on market access and how this could affect strategic decision-making.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareVol. 40(S1)
University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.