Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences (ISSN: 2581-5423)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 9

Improving Fairness of Health Technology Assessment Frameworks

J Sharma1,2*, J Bunders2, T Zuiderent-Jerak2 and B Regeer2

1CEO, AP Med Tech Zone and Executive Director, Kalam Institute of Health Technology, Visakhapatnam, India

2Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands

*Corresponding Author: J Sharma, CEO, AP Med Tech Zone and Executive Director, Kalam Institute of Health Technology, Visakhapatnam, India.

Received: July 04, 2020; Published: September 18, 2020



HTA frameworks have traditionally focused on the elusive quest for an equal measure to rationally distribute and reimburse health technologies. HTA therefore has proven itself important by allowing decision makers to be equipped with logics for the decision, at the same time allowing stakeholders including citizens to appreciate the limitation of decision to ‘provide’ or ‘not to provide’ a service/intervention. This has had impact on budgeting and financing of decisions. However, a flip side of this focus on distribution using ‘one-sided rationality’ makes other rationalities, including those that are value-derived but directly affect health outcomes come either at the end of the process of appraisal or largely left to the policy implementation phase. Those rationalities that do not ‘fit-into’ the equal-distribution based criteria tend to be undervalued in HTA methodologies. In this commentary, we investigate the extent to which selected HTA organizations around the world, apply the key constituent components of an HTA to the process, and use the analysis to propose enhanced set of components that could make HTA process more comprehensive. Multi Decision Criteria Analysis could address this central challenge in common HTA methods, to allow various partial rationalities to be combined into a more comprehensive HTA decision by making HTA process more dynamic and inclusive.

Keywords: Health Technology Assessment (HTA); Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA); Framework



  1. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA).
  2. Kristensen Finn., et al. “Identifying the need for good practices in Health Technology Assessment: summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA”. Value in Health (2018).
  3. Noorani HZ., et al. “Priority setting for health technology assessment: A systematic review of current practical approaches”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23 (2007): 310-315.
  4. TR Oliver. “The politics of public health policy”. Annual Review Public Health 27 (2006): 195-233
  5. S Holm. “The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care”. BMJ 317 (1998): 1000-1002.
  6. C Mitton and C Donaldson. “Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges”. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2 (2004): 3.
  7. L Kapiriri and DK Martin. “A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health care analysis”. Health Care 15 (2007): 159-167.
  8. N Daniels. “Accountability for reasonableness”. BMJ 321 (2000): 1300-1301.
  9. J Abelson., et al. “Bringing ׳the public׳ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice”. Health Policy 82 (2007): 37-50.
  10. World Health Organization. “Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities”. World Health Organization, Geneva (2015).
  11. S Tantivess and V Tangcharoensathien. “Coverage decisions and the court: a public health perspective on glucosamine reimbursement in Thailand”. Health System Reform 2 (2016).
  12. MM Prado. “The debatable role of courts in Brazil׳s health care system: does litigation harm or help?”. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2013): 124-137.
  13. N Daniels., et al. “Role of the courts in the progressive realization of the right to health: between the threat and the promise of judicialization in Mexico”. Health System and Reform 1 (2015): 229-234.
  14. P Thokala., et al. “Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force”. Value Health 19 (2016): 1-13.
  15. Rob Baltussen., et al. “Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes”. Value in Health2 (2017): 256-260.
  16. Castro HE., et al. “HTA and MCDA solely or combined? The case of priority-setting in Colombia”. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 16 (2018): 47.
  17. Rajan A., et al. “Addressing issues in health technology assessment promotion: Motives, enablers, and barriers”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1 (2011): 55-63.
  18. 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”. Patient4 (2010): 229-248.
  19. Baltussen R and Niessen L. “Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis”. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 4 (2006): 14.
  20. Peacock S., et al. “Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods”. Health Policy 92 (2009): 124-132.
  21. Marsh K., et al. “Incorporating MCDA into HTA: challenges and potential solutions, with a focus on lower income settings”. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 16 (2018): 43.
  22. Oliveira MD., et al. The European Journal of Health Economics 20 (2019): 891.
  23. Kahraman C., et al. “Fuzzy Multi criteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review”. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 4 (2015): 637-666.
  24. Tanios N., et al. “Which Criteria Are Considered in Healthcare Decisions? Insights From an International Survey of Policy and Clinical Decision Makers”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 4 (2013): 456-465.
  25. Keeney R L RH. “Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs”. New York: Wiley; (1976).
  26. Marsh K., et al. “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions”. Switzerland AG: Springer (2017).
  27. Kaksalan M ZS., et al. “Multiple Criteria Decision Making From Early History to the 21st Century”. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Limited (2011).
  28. Youngkong S., et al. “Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Including Health Interventions in the Universal Health Coverage Benefit Package in Thailand”. Value Health6 (2012): 961-970.
  29. Thokala P., et al. “Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making - An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force”. Value Health1 (2016): 1-13.
  30. Delice EK and Zegerek S. “Ranking occupational risk levels of emergency departments using a new fuzzy MCDM model: A case study in Turkey”. Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences 6 (2016): 2345-2356.
  31. Dehe B and Bamford D. “Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location”. Expert Systems With Applications 42 (2015): 6717-6727.
  32. Liu H-c., et al. “Assessment of health-care waste disposal methods using a VIKOR-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method”. Waste Management 33 (2013): 2744-2751.
  33. Busse R., et al. “Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 18 (2012): 361-422.
  34. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. EUnetHTA Work Package 8. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building (2008).
  35. Hailey D. “Toward transparency in health technology assessment. A checklist for HTA reports”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19 (2003): 1-7
  36. Drummond, M., et al. “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 24 (2008): 244-258.
  37. N Daniels., et al. “Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 5 (2016): 1-3.
  38. WJ Oortwijn., et al. “Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 29 (2013): 424-434.
  39. Mitnovetski O and Nicol D. "Are patents for methods of medical treatment contrary to the ordre public and morality or “generally inconvenient?”. Journal of Medical Ethics5 (2004): 470-475.
  40. Hoen, E. “TRIPS, pharmaceutical patents, and access to essential medicines: A long way from Seattle to doha”. Chicago Journal of International Law1 (2002): 6.
  41. Marks S and Benedict AL. “Access to medical products, vaccines and medical technologies”. In J. M. Zuniga, S. P. Marks and L. O. Gostin (Eds.), Advancing the human right to health. New York: Oxford University Press (2013): 305-324.
  42. WHO - World Health Statistics reports on global health goals for 194 countries (2015).


Citation: J Sharma., et al. “Improving Fairness of Health Technology Assessment Frameworks". Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences 4.9 (2020): 15-21.


Acceptance rate33%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor0.614

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is April 30, 2021.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US