Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2016

Open Access 01-05-2016 | Practical Application

Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment

Authors: Aris Angelis, Panos Kanavos

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

In recent years, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has emerged as a likely alternative to address shortcomings in health technology assessment (HTA) by offering a more holistic perspective to value assessment and acting as an alternative priority setting tool. In this paper, we argue that MCDA needs to subscribe to robust methodological processes related to the selection of objectives, criteria and attributes in order to be meaningful in the context of healthcare decision making and fulfil its role in value-based assessment (VBA). We propose a methodological process, based on multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) methods comprising five distinct phases, outline the stages involved in each phase and discuss their relevance in the HTA process. Importantly, criteria and attributes need to satisfy a set of desired properties, otherwise the outcome of the analysis can produce spurious results and misleading recommendations. Assuming the methodological process we propose is adhered to, the application of MCDA presents three very distinct advantages to decision makers in the context of HTA and VBA: first, it acts as an instrument for eliciting preferences on the performance of alternative options across a wider set of explicit criteria, leading to a more complete assessment of value; second, it allows the elicitation of preferences across the criteria themselves to reflect differences in their relative importance; and, third, the entire process of preference elicitation can be informed by direct stakeholder engagement, and can therefore reflect their own preferences. All features are fully transparent and facilitate decision making.
Footnotes
1
“Decision utility” refers to the preference or desire for an outcome that has not occurred in contrast to “experienced utility” which refers to the actual hedonic experience of an outcome [6].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2000. Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2000.
2.
go back to reference Drummond M. Basic types of economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al, editors. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond M. Basic types of economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al, editors. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press; 2005.
3.
go back to reference Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, et al. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S31–5.CrossRefPubMed Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, et al. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S31–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716–21.CrossRefPubMed Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716–21.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kahneman D. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Leg Theory. 1997;3:105–24.CrossRef Kahneman D. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Leg Theory. 1997;3:105–24.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications of the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118:215–34.CrossRef Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications of the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118:215–34.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Normand C. Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38:27–31.CrossRefPubMed Normand C. Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38:27–31.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, et al. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:673–85.CrossRefPubMed Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, et al. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:673–85.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsesiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: in the patient experience adequately represented? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:10–9.CrossRefPubMed Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsesiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: in the patient experience adequately represented? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:10–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Zwart-van Rijkom J, Leufkens H, Busschbach J, Broekmans A, Rutten F. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(2):149–160. Zwart-van Rijkom J, Leufkens H, Busschbach J, Broekmans A, Rutten F. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(2):149–160.
11.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London: NICE; 2009. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London: NICE; 2009.
12.
go back to reference Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. London: Department of Health; 2010. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. London: Department of Health; 2010.
13.
go back to reference Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: government response to consultation. London: Department of Health; 2011. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: government response to consultation. London: Department of Health; 2011.
15.
go back to reference Office of Fair Trading. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: an OFT market study. London: OFT; 2007. Office of Fair Trading. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: an OFT market study. London: OFT; 2007.
16.
go back to reference Towse A. If it ain’t broke, don’t price fix it: the OFT and the PPRS. Health Econ. 2007;16:653–65.CrossRefPubMed Towse A. If it ain’t broke, don’t price fix it: the OFT and the PPRS. Health Econ. 2007;16:653–65.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kanavos P, Manning J, Taylor D, et al. Implementing value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals in the UK. London: 2020health; 2010. Kanavos P, Manning J, Taylor D, et al. Implementing value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals in the UK. London: 2020health; 2010.
18.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Consultation paper: value based assessment of health technologies. London: NICE; 2014. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Consultation paper: value based assessment of health technologies. London: NICE; 2014.
19.
go back to reference Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking: the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking: the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Devlin NJ, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Lond: Office of Health Economics; 2011. Devlin NJ, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Lond: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
21.
go back to reference Thokala P. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: report by the decision support unit, School of Health and Related Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2011. Thokala P. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: report by the decision support unit, School of Health and Related Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2011.
22.
go back to reference Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for value based assessment of new medical technologies: a conceptual framework. The LSE Health Working Paper Series in Health Policy and Economics. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2013. Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for value based assessment of new medical technologies: a conceptual framework. The LSE Health Working Paper Series in Health Policy and Economics. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2013.
23.
go back to reference Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis to value orphan medicines. Office of Health Economics Research Papers. London: OHE; 2013. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis to value orphan medicines. Office of Health Economics Research Papers. London: OHE; 2013.
24.
go back to reference Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EunetHTA core model® in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):105–12.CrossRefPubMed Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EunetHTA core model® in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):105–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:345–65.CrossRefPubMed Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:345–65.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986. Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
28.
go back to reference Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H. smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1999. Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H. smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1999.
29.
go back to reference Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Communities and Local Government Publications; 2009. Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Communities and Local Government Publications; 2009.
30.
go back to reference Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;1171–1181. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;1171–1181.
32.
go back to reference Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in health care: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.CrossRefPubMed Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in health care: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Angelis A, Kanavos P. Using MCDA to assess value of new medical technologies. LSE Health Working Paper Series in Health Policy and Economics. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2013. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Using MCDA to assess value of new medical technologies. LSE Health Working Paper Series in Health Policy and Economics. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2013.
34.
go back to reference Keeney RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res. 2002;50(6):935–45.CrossRef Keeney RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res. 2002;50(6):935–45.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Keeney RL. Value focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992. Keeney RL. Value focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992.
37.
go back to reference Franco LA, Montibeller G. Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis interventions. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010. Franco LA, Montibeller G. Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis interventions. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010.
38.
go back to reference Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Keeney RL, Gregory RS. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 2005;53:1–11.CrossRef Keeney RL, Gregory RS. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 2005;53:1–11.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Hummel MJM, Volz F, Van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.CrossRefPubMed Hummel MJM, Volz F, Van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961–70.CrossRefPubMed Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961–70.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):80–5.CrossRefPubMed Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):80–5.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984. Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984.
44.
go back to reference Claxton K. Should multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) replace cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for evaluation of health care coverage decisions? In: ISPOR 16th Annual European Congress. Dublin; 2013. Claxton K. Should multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) replace cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for evaluation of health care coverage decisions? In: ISPOR 16th Annual European Congress. Dublin; 2013.
45.
go back to reference Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van Til JA, Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:445–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van Til JA, Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:445–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment
Authors
Aris Angelis
Panos Kanavos
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

PharmacoEconomics 5/2016 Go to the issue