IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i5d10.1007_s10198-023-01631-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Katharina Schweitzer

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Manuel Nico Dold

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Astrid Genet

    (Pfizer Deutschland GmbH)

  • Klaus Gossens

    (AbbVie Deutschland)

  • Thomas Klein-Hessling

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Nils Löffler

    (Pfizer Deutschland GmbH)

  • Matthias Rabel

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Andrej Rasch

    (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.)

  • Eva-Maria Reuter

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Jessica Schmelcher

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Natalia Wolfram

    (AbbVie Deutschland)

  • Sebastian Werner

    (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.)

Abstract

From 2025, Health Technology Developers (HTDs) have to submit EU HTA dossiers. The joint clinical assessment (JCA) aims to streamline HTA processes and access to medicinal products across Europe. Currently, German HTA bodies IQWiG and G-BA actively shape the JCA methodology. Here we examine if German HTA dossier requirements are suitable for the JCA. We compare the number of safety endpoint and subgroup analyses in German dossiers with analyses considered in IQWIG’s benefit assessment and evaluate if these analyses were considered by the G-BA. We further investigated how the number of analyses was affected by the latest change in the German dossier template. With the current template, HTDs report in median 2.6 times more analyses on adverse events (AE) and 1.1 times more subgroup categories than in the previous template. IQWiG does not consider 33% of AE analyses and 73% of the subgroup categories presented by the HTD under the current template. G-BA considered the same AE as IQWiG in 76% of cases. Subgroups were uncommented by G-BA in most cases, independent of the template (previous: 93%, current 85%) and unconsidered in the conclusion on additional benefit (previous: 77%, current 69%). Thus, changes in the dossier template drastically increased HTD workload, but additional analyses seem unconsidered by the HTA bodies. With a broader scope in JCA, this effect could be amplified. To mitigate duplicative efforts and ensure prompt availability of medicinal products as envisioned by the HTAR, we suggest well-chosen and precise dossier requirements, early consultations, and early HTD engagement.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Katharina Schweitzer & Manuel Nico Dold & Astrid Genet & Klaus Gossens & Thomas Klein-Hessling & Nils Löffler & Matthias Rabel & Andrej Rasch & Eva-Maria Reuter & Jessica Schmelcher & Natalia Wo, 2024. "Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 877-888, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01631-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01631-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-023-01631-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-023-01631-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor Ivandic, 2014. "Requirements for benefit assessment in Germany and England – overview and comparison," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. Visintin, Erica & Tinelli, Michela & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 118-129.
    3. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    4. Anna-Maria Fontrier & Bregtje Kamphuis & Panos Kanavos, 2024. "How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 935-950, August.
    5. Riswandy Wasir & Sylvi Irawati & Amr Makady & Maarten Postma & Wim Goettsch & Erik Buskens & Talitha Feenstra, 2019. "Use of medicine pricing and reimbursement policies for universal health coverage in Indonesia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    7. Fumio Teramae & Tomohiro Makino & Yeongjoo Lim & Shintaro Sengoku & Kota Kodama, 2020. "Impact of Research and Development Strategy on Sustainable Growth in Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Löblová, Olga & King, Lawrence & Kaló, Zoltán & Botz, Lajos, 2019. "Shedding light on the HTA consultancy market: Insights from Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1237-1243.
    9. Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "How do HTA agencies perceive conditional approval of medicines? Evidence from England, Scotland, France and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1130-1143.
    10. Livio Garattini & Anna Padula, 2020. "HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 1-5, February.
    11. Sarri, Grammati & Freitag, Andreas & Szegvari, Boglarka & Mountian, Irina & Brixner, Diana & Bertelsen, Neil & Kaló, Zoltán & Upadhyaya, Sheela, 2021. "The Role of Patient Experience in the Value Assessment of Complex Technologies – Do HTA Bodies Need to Reconsider How Value is Assessed?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 593-601.
    12. Fontrier, Anna-Maria & Kamphuis, Bregtje W. & Kanavos, Panos, 2023. "How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120537, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Fontrier, Anna-Maria, 2022. "Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    14. Löblová, Olga & Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Kaló, Zoltán & King, Lawrence & McKee, Martin, 2019. "Alternative access schemes for pharmaceuticals in Europe: Towards an emerging typology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 630-634.
    15. Melanie Büssgen & Tom Stargardt, 2023. "Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 437-451, April.
    16. Aneta Mela & Dorota Lis & Elżbieta Rdzanek & Janusz Jaroszyński & Marzena Furtak-Niczyporuk & Bartłomiej Drop & Tomasz Blicharski & Maciej Niewada, 2024. "AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1291-1310, November.
    17. Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    18. Barbara Więckowska & Monika Raulinajtys-Grzybek & Katarzyna Byszek, 2022. "Using the Dynamic SWOT Analysis to Assess Options for Implementing the HB-HTA Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    20. Stephan Eger & Jörg Mahlich, 2014. "Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    AMNOG; IQWiG; G-BA; EU HTA; PICO; JCA;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01631-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.