Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations

Authors: Tania Yuka Yuba, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes, Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The quality of the evidence used in health technology assessment (HTA) agency reports has been considered essential for decision-making processes and their legitimacy. In Brazil, CONITEC is the agency responsible for defining data mandatory for the submission of proposals for the incorporation of new technologies. The objective of this study was to analyse CONITEC recommendation reports, the type of scientific evidence used in them and their compliance with operational procedures.

Methods

This is a descriptive study based on CONITEC official reports from July 2012 through December 2016. Data were collected with a specific extraction form and analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

We evaluated 199 CONITEC recommendation reports. The annual number of reports increased during the study period. The absolute annual number of new technologies incorporated in 2013 (n = 24) was similar to that observed for 2014 (n = 24) and 2015 (n = 22), decreasing in 2016 (n = 13). The type of technology most frequently evaluated was ‘drugs’ (68.3%), followed by ‘procedures’ (20.1%). Overall, 117 (58.8%) reports were internal demands, 75 (37.7%) were external demands and 7 (3.5%) were mixed demands. There were differences between internal and external demands in terms of the evidence used in the reports and the decision regarding the recommendation to incorporate the technologies. Among the internal demands, the recommendation to incorporate the new technology was made for 70.9% of the reports, only 9.6% of which included full HTAs. Among the external demands, the incorporation of the new technology was recommended for 17.3% of the reports, 76.9% of which included full HTAs. Of the 101 reports in which incorporation of the new technology was recommended, 88 (87.1%) did not include a full health economic evaluation and ICER calculation. There are compliance difficulties with the recommendations in the CONITEC internal regulations regarding the type and quality of evidence considered in the analysis of recommendation reports.

Conclusions

The characteristics of the evidence used in recommendation reports and those considered to be mandatory were very different, indicating problems in decision-making processes. There is a need to study, with a broader perspective, the factors that influence the type of evidence used in decision-making processes in order to contribute to the development of better practices and policies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Novaes H, De Soarez P. Avaliação de tecnologias em saúde: técnicas, práticas e políticas. In: Costa L, Bahia L, Gadelha C, editors. Saúde, Desenvolvimento e Inovação. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz; 2015. p. 327–58. Novaes H, De Soarez P. Avaliação de tecnologias em saúde: técnicas, práticas e políticas. In: Costa L, Bahia L, Gadelha C, editors. Saúde, Desenvolvimento e Inovação. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz; 2015. p. 327–58.
2.
go back to reference Denis JL, Lehoux P, Champagne FA. Knowledge utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In: Lumieux-Charles L, Champagne F, editors. Using Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care. Toronto. Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2008. p. 18–40. Denis JL, Lehoux P, Champagne FA. Knowledge utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In: Lumieux-Charles L, Champagne F, editors. Using Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care. Toronto. Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2008. p. 18–40.
3.
go back to reference Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage; 1994. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage; 1994.
4.
go back to reference Ottoson J. Knowledge-for-action theories in evaluation: Knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer, and translation. In: Ottoson JM, Hawe P, editors. Knowledge Utilization, Diffusion, Implementation, Transfer, and Translation: Implications for Evaluation New Directions for Evaluation; 2009. p. 7–20. Ottoson J. Knowledge-for-action theories in evaluation: Knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer, and translation. In: Ottoson JM, Hawe P, editors. Knowledge Utilization, Diffusion, Implementation, Transfer, and Translation: Implications for Evaluation New Directions for Evaluation; 2009. p. 7–20.
5.
go back to reference Gerhardus A, Dorendorf E, Rottingen JA, Santamera AS. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Evidence from the research literature. In: Velasco-Garrido M, Kristensen F, Nielsen C, Busse R, editors. Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe: Current Status, Challenges and Potential. Brussels: WHO on behalf of the European Observatory on Health System and Policies; 2008. Gerhardus A, Dorendorf E, Rottingen JA, Santamera AS. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Evidence from the research literature. In: Velasco-Garrido M, Kristensen F, Nielsen C, Busse R, editors. Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe: Current Status, Challenges and Potential. Brussels: WHO on behalf of the European Observatory on Health System and Policies; 2008.
6.
go back to reference Novaes HM, Soárez PC. Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations: dimensions of the institutional and political framework. Cad Saude Publica. 2016;32(Suppl 2):e00022315.CrossRef Novaes HM, Soárez PC. Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations: dimensions of the institutional and political framework. Cad Saude Publica. 2016;32(Suppl 2):e00022315.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Lei n° 12.401, de 28 de abril de 2011. Altera a Lei n° 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990 para dispor sobre a assistência terapêutica e a incorporação de tecnologia em saúde no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2011. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Lei n° 12.401, de 28 de abril de 2011. Altera a Lei n° 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990 para dispor sobre a assistência terapêutica e a incorporação de tecnologia em saúde no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2011.
8.
go back to reference Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Decreto n° 7.646, de 21 de dezembro de 2011. Regulamenta a Lei n° 12.401, de 28 de abril de 2011 e Dispõe sobre a Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde e sobre o processo administrativo para incorporação, exclusão e alteração de tecnologias em saúde pelo Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2011. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Decreto n° 7.646, de 21 de dezembro de 2011. Regulamenta a Lei n° 12.401, de 28 de abril de 2011 e Dispõe sobre a Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde e sobre o processo administrativo para incorporação, exclusão e alteração de tecnologias em saúde pelo Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2011.
10.
go back to reference Wilsdon T, Fiz E, Haderi A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment: 2013 CRA Project No D19197–00. Washington: CRA. Charles River Associates; 2014. p. 132. Wilsdon T, Fiz E, Haderi A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment: 2013 CRA Project No D19197–00. Washington: CRA. Charles River Associates; 2014. p. 132.
11.
go back to reference Silva HP, Petramale CA, Elias FT. Advances and challenges to the Brazilian policy of health technology management. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46(Suppl 1):83–90.CrossRefPubMed Silva HP, Petramale CA, Elias FT. Advances and challenges to the Brazilian policy of health technology management. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46(Suppl 1):83–90.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B, INAHTA Quality Assurance Group. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):430–7.CrossRefPubMed Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B, INAHTA Quality Assurance Group. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):430–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, GW T. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. London: Oxford; 2015. p. 464. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, GW T. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. London: Oxford; 2015. p. 464.
15.
go back to reference Nunes LMN, Fonteles MMF, Passos ACB, PSD A. Evaluation of demands of inclusion, exclusion and alteration of Technologies in the Brazilian Health System submitted to the National Committee on Technology Incorporation. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2017;53:e16073.CrossRef Nunes LMN, Fonteles MMF, Passos ACB, PSD A. Evaluation of demands of inclusion, exclusion and alteration of Technologies in the Brazilian Health System submitted to the National Committee on Technology Incorporation. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2017;53:e16073.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Caetano R, Silva RMD, Pedro É, Oliveira IAG, Biz AN, Santana P. Incorporation of new medicines by the National Commission for Incorporation of Technologies, 2012 to June 2016. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22:2513–25.CrossRefPubMed Caetano R, Silva RMD, Pedro É, Oliveira IAG, Biz AN, Santana P. Incorporation of new medicines by the National Commission for Incorporation of Technologies, 2012 to June 2016. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22:2513–25.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Griffiths UK, Legood R, Pitt C. Comparison of economic evaluation methods across low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: what are the differences and why? Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):29–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Griffiths UK, Legood R, Pitt C. Comparison of economic evaluation methods across low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: what are the differences and why? Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):29–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Pitt C, Vassall A, Teerawattananon Y, Griffiths UK, Guinness L, Walker D, Foster N, Hanson K. Foreword: Health economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: methodological issues and challenges for priority setting. Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):1–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pitt C, Vassall A, Teerawattananon Y, Griffiths UK, Guinness L, Walker D, Foster N, Hanson K. Foreword: Health economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: methodological issues and challenges for priority setting. Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):1–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Soarez PC, Novaes HMD. Cost-effectiveness thresholds and the Brazilian Unified National Health System. Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33:e00040717.CrossRefPubMed Soarez PC, Novaes HMD. Cost-effectiveness thresholds and the Brazilian Unified National Health System. Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33:e00040717.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Decimoni TC, Leandro R, Rozman LM, Craig D, Iglesias CP, Novaes HMD, de Soárez PC. Systematic review of health economic evaluation studies developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013. Front Public Health. 2018;6:52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Decimoni TC, Leandro R, Rozman LM, Craig D, Iglesias CP, Novaes HMD, de Soárez PC. Systematic review of health economic evaluation studies developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013. Front Public Health. 2018;6:52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Hupe P. And the rest is implementation.' Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations. Public Policy Admin. 2016;31:103–21.CrossRef Hupe P. And the rest is implementation.' Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations. Public Policy Admin. 2016;31:103–21.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Parkhurst J. The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2017. Parkhurst J. The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2017.
Metadata
Title
Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations
Authors
Tania Yuka Yuba
Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes
Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0319-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018 Go to the issue