Article

Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research.

Medicine and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Keenan Research Centre of Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.55). 08/2009; 25(3):272-80. DOI: 10.1017/S026646230999002X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic.
The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing "only in research" (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made.Methods: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.
All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research.
The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Financing innovative medical devices is an important challenge for national health policy makers, and a crucial issue for hospitals. However, when innovative medical devices are launched on the European market there is generally little clinical evidence regarding both efficacy and safety, both because of the flaws in the European system for regulating such devices, and because they are at an early stage of development. To manage the uncertainty surrounding the reimbursement of innovation, several European countries have set up temporary funding schemes to generate evidence about the effectiveness of devices. This article explores two different French approaches to funding innovative in-hospital devices and collecting supplementary data: the coverage with evidence development (CED) scheme introduced under Article L. 165-1-1 of the French Social Security Code; and national programs for hospital-based research. We discuss pros and cons of both approaches in the light of CED policies in Germany and the UK. The CED policies for devices share common limitations. Thus, transparency of CED processes should be enhanced and decisions need to be made in a timely way. Finally, we think that closer collaboration between manufacturers, health authorities and hospitals is essential to make CED policies more operational.
    Health Policy. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oxaliplatin is an anticancer drug routinely used to treat colorectal, gastroesophageal, ovarian, breast, head/neck, and genitourinary cancers. Discontinuation of oxaliplatin treatment is mostly because of peripheral neuropathy, more often than for tumor progression, potentially compromising patient benefit. Several strategies to prevent neurotoxicity have so far been investigated. To overcome this life-threatening side effect, while taking advantage of the antineoplastic activities of oxaliplatin, we describe in detail recent findings on the underlying mechanisms of genetic variants associated with toxicity and resistance to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. A comprehensive panel of eight polymorphisms, previously validated as significant markers related to oxaliplatin toxicity, is proposed and discussed. In addition, the most common available strategies or methods to prevent/minimize the toxicity were described in detail. Moreover, an early outline evaluation of the genotyping costs and methods was taken in consideration. With the availability of individual pharmacogenomic profiles, the oncologists will have new means to make treatment decisions for their patients that maximize benefit and minimize toxicity. With this purpose in mind, the clinician and lab manager should cooperate to evaluate the advantages and limitations, in terms of costs and applicability, of the most appropriate pharmacogenomic tests for routine incorporation into clinical practice.
    Anti-cancer drugs 09/2013; · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Financing innovative medical devices is an important challenge for national health policy makers, and a crucial issue for hospitals. However, when innovative medical devices are launched on the European market there is generally little clinical evidence regarding both efficacy and safety, both because of the flaws in the European system for regulating such devices, and because they are at an early stage of development. To manage the uncertainty surrounding the reimbursement of innovation, several European countries have set up temporary funding schemes to generate evidence about the effectiveness of devices. This article explores two different French approaches to funding innovative in-hospital devices and collecting supplementary data: the coverage with evidence development (CED) scheme introduced under Article L. 165-1-1 of the French Social Security Code; and national programs for hospital-based research. We discuss pros and cons of both approaches in the light of CED policies in Germany and the UK. The CED policies for devices share common limitations. Thus, transparency of CED processes should be enhanced and decisions need to be made in a timely way. Finally, we think that closer collaboration between manufacturers, health authorities and hospitals is essential to make CED policies more operational.
    Health Policy 04/2014; · 1.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
49 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014