H e a lth h T e ch h n n o o l lo o g g y y A A - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
H e a lth h T e ch h n n o o l lo o g g y y A A sse ssm e n n t t f fo o r r R a re D ise a se : L L e e sso o n n s s L L e e a rn n e e d d f fro o m m T h h a a ila n n d d
P a tta ra L e e la h a v a ro n g , P h D P ro g ra m L e a d e r o f H e a lth In te rv e n tio n a n d T e c h n
g y A s s e s s m e n t P ro g ra m (H IT A P )
2
R ic h te r T , e t a
a red is e a s e te rm in
g y a n d d e fin itio n s — a s y s te m a tic g lo b a l re v ie w : re p
f th eIS P O R ra re d is e a s e s p e c ia l in te re s t g ro u p . V a lu e H e a lth . 2 1 5 ;1 8 (6 ):9 6 – 1 4
Average 40 cases/100,000 people
T h a h a ila n d : n d : 1 5 1 5
(T
l a l # < # < 1 , 1 ,0 ca ca se se s) s)
2 . P P ri rio ri rity se ttin g
n g
to p i
ics
4 . M M a kin g n g co ve r e ra g a g e e d e d e cisio n s
s
3
S ta k a ke h e h
e r e r e n e n g a g a g e m e m e n e n t
1 . T T
i
ic se l e le c e ctio n
W
g n g G ro u p s
p s o f
e d i d ica l e e xp e p e rt W
g n g G ro u p s
p s o f
i
ic se le ctio n
N
e d e d ica l a l b b e n e n e f e fit p a c a cka g a g e
e w T e ch n
h n
g y
y a a n d n d in t n te rve n t n tio n s
s
ffe c e ctive e C
r e ra g a g e f e fo r e x e xistin g p a c a cka g a g e s T e c e ch n ica l a l H H e a l e a lth E co n
ics W W
g n g G ro u p
p M e d e d ica l a l b b e n e n e f e fit p a c a cka g a g e
e w e w m m e d e d icin e s e s S u b c u b co m
m itte e
N a tio n a
a l L i L ist o f
E sse n tia ia l M l M e d ic icin in e S u b c u b co m
m itte e
U n ive r e rsa l a l C C
r e ra g a g e e S ch e m e m e s e s B B e n e n e f e fit P a c a cka g a g e
4
C rite r e ria a fo r d d e v e ve l e lo p m e n e n t n
n
e d e d ica l a lre i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p p a c a cka g a g e
5
1 . 1 .B u r u rd e d e n
n
i d ise a se 2 . 2 .S e v e ve r e rity o f d d ise a s e a se e 3 . 3 .E ffica c a cy a n a n d /o r e f e ffe c e ctive n e n e s e ss 4 . 4 .D iffe r e re n e n ce a m e a m
g h e a l e a lth b b e n e n e f e fit sch e m e m e s e s 5 . 5 .C a ta stro p h i
h ic i illn e n e ss a a n d n d h
s h
se h
h
d e co n
ic i im p a p a ct 6 . 6 .S
l a a n d n d E q u i q u ity c co n s
sid e d e ra tio n
1 . 1 .B u r u rd e d e n
n
i d ise a se 2 . 2 .S e v e ve r e rity o f d d ise a s e a se e 3 . 3 .S a f a fe t e ty a n a n d E E ffica c a cy 4 . 4 .C lin lin ic ica l p l p ra ctic ice g g u id id e lin lin e
u d g e u d g e t I Im p a p a ct 6 .O th e h e r s su p p
u p p
g n g e vid e d e n c n ce e e .g . g . co co
e d e p e p e n d e n d e n c n ce t te ch n
h n
g y
y a a n d n d fe a sib ib ilit ility C rite r e ria a fo r d d e v e ve l e lo p m e n e n t m e d e d ica l a lre i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p p a c a cka g a g e
Clinical: Efficacy, Safety, Effectiveness Economic: Efficiency, Costs, Cost- effectiveness Patient- related: Social impact, Ethics, Acceptability Organisationa l: Feasibility, Utilisation, Assessibility
6
HTA
Source: Draborg et al. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005 Winter; 21(1):89-95.
1. Medical: Imiglucerase for Gaucher disease type I 2. Non-medical: Neonatal Screening for Inborn Errors of Metabolism Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry
C rite r e ria a fo r d d e v e ve l e lo p m e n e n t n
n
e d e d ica l a lre i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p p a c a cka g a g e
7
1 . 1 .C
f e ffe c e ctive n e n e s e ss 2 . 2 .C lin lin ic ica l p l p ra ctic ice g g u id id e lin lin e 3 . 3 .F e a s e a sib ility a n a n d p p re p e p a r a re d e d n e s e ss o f h e a l e a lth s se r e rvice s e s 4 . 4 .A ffo r
a d a b i b ility o f
u b l p u b lic h e h e a lth i h in s n su r u ra n c n ce 5 . 5 .S
l a l a n a n d e t e th ica l a l i issu e s e s 6 . 6 .O th e h e r co n s
sid e d e ra tio n e
e .g . m m e d e d ica l a l r re i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p a c a cka g a g e
M a kin g d e n g d e cisio n
1 . 1 .C
f e ffe c e ctive n e n e s e ss a n a n d p rice e n e g e g
t a tio n 2 . 2 .C lin lin ic ica l p l p ra ctic ice g g u id id e lin lin e 3 . 3 .F e a s e a sib ility a n a n d p p re p e p a r a re d e d n e s e ss o f h e a l e a lth s se r e rvice s e s 4 . 4 .A ffo r
a d a b i b ility o f
u b l p u b lic h e h e a lth i h in s n su r u ra n c n ce 5 . 5 .S
l a l a n a n d e t e th ica l a l i issu e s e s 6 . 6 .O th e h e r co n s
sid e d e ra tio n e
e .g . n
n
e d e d ica l a l re i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p p a c a cka g a g e
M a kin g d e n g d e cisio n
C rite r e ria a fo r d d e v e ve l e lo p m e n e n t m e d e d ica l a lre i e im b u rse m e m e n e n t p p a c a cka g a g e
Imig iglu lucerase for G Gaucher er t type e 1
It was s not
effec ective e due ue to very hi high h cost t tr treatm tment t (ICER 197, 197,000 000 USD/ QALY , Y , thr hresho hold 5, 5,000 000 USD/ QALY LY). The drug is is lif life-sa saving, and it is s need eeded ed for
e mar arrow tran ansplan ant (curat ative e treat eatmen ent cover ered ed by UHC). Equity co conce cern : if if this is medic icin ine is is not inc nclud uded in n the he list but ut the he bone ne marrow tran ansplan ant is in the e ben enef efit pac ackag age e under er
eans only the e rich can an ac acces ess the e treat eatmen ent as as they ey ar are e ab able e to pay ay for im imig iglu lucerase (around und 120, 120,00 00 USD/ year ear) Inc nclus usion n in n the he NLEM after price neg egotiat ation
Sources: Teerawattananon Y et al. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 2014,108.7:397-404.
Budget 411,000 USD Budget 2 million USD *Only 2 patients could undergo bone marrow transplantation
N
T e ch n
h n
g y
y In d i n d ica tio n
E stim a te d d n u m n u m b e b e r o f
a p a tie n t n t 1 A g a l a lsid a s a seb e t e ta F a F a b ryd ise a e s e a e s
2 A lg l g lu c u co s
a d a sea l a lfa P
p e p ed ise a s e a se
3 Id u r d u rsu l u lfa se M u c u co p
cch a h a rid
d
typ e p e II (H u n t u n te r syn d r n d ro m
e )
4 L a L a ro n i
id a d a se M u c u co p
cch a h a rid
d
typ e p e I H u r u rle r (M S M S P
) H ) & H u H u rle r-S ch e ie(M S M S P
S H S )
5 N e
a t a ta l a l S S cre e n e e n in g U sin g n g T a n d e n d e m M M a ss S p e c e ctro m e t e try 3 3 in d i n d ica tio n s
s o f
b
n b
E n E rro r
f
M e t e ta b a b
10