Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access

Worldwide, billions of dollars are invested in medical product development and there is an increasing pressure to maximize the revenues of these investments. That is, governments need to be informed about the benefits of spending public resources, companies need more information to manage their product development portfolios and even universities may need to direct their research programmes in order to maximize societal benefits. Assuming that all medical products need to be adopted by the heavily regulated healthcare market at one point in time, it is worthwhile to look at the logic behind healthcare decision making, specifically, decisions on the coverage of medical products and decisions on the use of these products under competing and uncertain conditions. With the growing tension between leveraging economic growth through R&D spending on the one hand and stricter control of healthcare budgets on the other, several attempts have been made to apply the health technology assessment (HTA) methodology to earlier stages of technology development and implementation. For instance, horizon scanning was introduced to systematically assess emerging technologies in order to inform health policy. Others have introduced iterative economic evaluation, e.g. economic evaluations in earlier stages of clinical research. However, most of these methods are primarily intended to support governments in making decisions regarding potentially expensive new medical products. They do not really inform biomedical product developers on the probability of return on investment, nor do they inform about the market needs and specific requirements of technologies in development. It is precisely this aspect that increasingly receives attention, i.e. is it possible to use HTA tools and methods to inform biomedical product development and to anticipate further development and market access. Several methods have been used in previous decades, but have never been compiled in a comprehensive review. The main objective of this article was to provide an overview of previous work and methods in the field of early HTA, and to put these approaches in perspective through a conceptual framework introduced in this paper. A particular goal of the review was to familiarize decision makers with available techniques that can be employed in early-stage decision making, and to identify opportunities for further methodological growth in this emerging field of HTA.     

Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) "Structure" of HTA programs; (ii) "Methods" of HTA; (iii) "Processes for Conduct" of HTA; and (iv) "Use of HTAs in Decision Making."     

Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment

Healthcare technology is a two-edged sword - it offers new and better treatment to a wider range of people and, at the same time, is a major driver of increasing costs in health systems. Many countries have developed sophisticated systems of health technology assessment (HTA) to inform decisions about new investments in new healthcare interventions. In this paper, we question whether HTA is also the appropriate framework for guiding or informing disinvestment decisions. In exploring the issues related to disinvestment, we first discuss the various HTA frameworks which have been suggested as a means of encouraging or facilitating disinvestment. We then describe available means of identifying candidates for disinvestment (comparative effectiveness research, clinical practice variations, clinical practice guidelines) and for implementing the disinvestment process (program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) and related techniques). In considering the possible reasons for the lack of progress in active disinvestment, we suggest that HTA is not the right framework as disinvestment involves a different decision making context. The key to disinvestment is not just what to stop doing but how to make it happen - that is, decision makers need to be aware of funding disincentives.     

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). HTA rhyme and reason?

The technology appraisal program of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established on April 1, 1999. Its role is to advise the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and service impact of new and emerging as well as established healthcare technologies. This paper describes the role of HTA in the NICE technology appraisal process, discusses some of the challenges of the use of HTA in national policy making, and considers some of the potential ways forward.     

Cost-effectiveness evidence on approved cancer drugs in Ireland: the limits of data availability and implications for public accountability

Background

We surveyed evidence published by Ireland’s National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) on the cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs approved for funding within the Irish public healthcare system. The purpose is threefold: to assess the completeness and clarity of publicly available cost-effectiveness data of such therapies; to provide summary estimates of that data; to consider the implications of constraints on data availability for accountability regarding healthcare resource allocation.

Methods

The National Cancer Control Programme lists 91 drug-indication pairs approved between June 2012 and July 2020. Records were retrieved from the NCPE website for each drug-indication pair, including, where available, health technology assessment (HTA) summary reports. We assessed what cost-effectiveness data regarding approved interventions is available, aggregated it and considered the consequences of reporting constraints.

Results

Among the 91 drug-indication pairs 61 were reimbursed following full HTA, 22 after a rapid review process and 8 have no corresponding NCPE record. Of the 61 where an HTA report was available, 41 presented costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates of the interventions compared. Cost estimates and corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are based on prices on application for reimbursement. Reimbursed prices are not published. Aggregating over the drug-indication pairs for which data is available, we find a mean incremental health gain of 0.85 QALY and an aggregate ICER of €100,295/QALY, which exceeds Ireland’s cost-effectiveness threshold of €45,000/QALY.

Conclusion

Reimbursement applications by pharmaceutical manufacturers for cancer drugs typically exceed Ireland’s cost-effectiveness threshold, often by a considerable margin. On aggregate, the additional total net cost of new drugs relative to current treatments needs to be more than halved for the prices sought on application to be justified for reimbursement. Commercial confidentiality regarding prices and cost-effectiveness upon reimbursement compromises accountability regarding the fair and efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources.

     

Emulating Target Trials With Real-World Data to Inform Health Technology Assessment: Findings and Lessons From an Application to Emergency Surgery

ObjectivesInternational health technology assessment (HTA) agencies recommend that real-world data (RWD) are used in some circumstances to add to the evidence base about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions. The target trial framework applies the design principles of randomized-controlled trials to RWD and can help alleviate inevitable concerns about bias and design flaws with nonrandomized studies. This article aimed to tackle the lack of guidance and exemplar applications on how this methodology can be applied to RWD to inform HTA decision making.MethodsWe use Hospital Episode Statistics data from England on emergency hospital admissions from 2010 to 2019 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery for 2 acute gastrointestinal conditions. We draw on the case study to describe the main challenges in applying the target trial framework alongside RWD and provide recommendations for how these can be addressed in practice.ResultsThe 4 main challenges when applying the target trial framework to RWD are (1) defining the study population, (2) defining the treatment strategies, (3) establishing time zero (baseline), and (4) adjusting for unmeasured confounding. The recommendations for how to address these challenges, mainly around the incorporation of expert judgment and use of appropriate methods for handling unmeasured confounding, are illustrated within the case study.ConclusionsThe recommendations outlined in this study could help future studies seeking to inform HTA decision processes. These recommendations can complement checklists for economic evaluations and design tools for estimating treatment effectiveness in nonrandomized studies.     

Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostics Assessment Program Decisions: Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Thresholds and Decision-Modifying Factors

ObjectivesThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Diagnostics Assessment Programme (DAP) evaluates the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies. A decision-making process benchmarking the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against a threshold while considering decision-modifying factors is common to NICE evaluations. This study investigated whether DAP decisions are consistent with the ICER thresholds described in the DAP manual, and to assess the impact of decision-modifying factors.MethodsDAP evaluations published before March 2018 were reviewed, and the following items were extracted: diagnostic technologies evaluated, decision problems assessed, Diagnostics Advisory Committee (DAC) decisions, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental costs, ICERs considered to be most plausible by the DAC, and decision justifications.ResultsAll 30 evaluations were reviewed; 8 were excluded because the DAC concluded there was “insufficient evidence” for decision making. In the remaining 22 evaluations, 91 decision problems were identified for further analysis, of which 52, 15, and 24 received “recommended,” “not recommended,” and “not recommended–only in research” guidance, respectively. The overall consistency rate of the DAC decisions with the £20 000/QALY threshold was 73.6%. Diagnostic technologies that were not recommended, despite an ICER less than £20 000/QALY, were associated with a larger number of decision-modifying factors favoring the comparator, versus recommended diagnostic technologies with ICERs less than £20 000/QALY. For technologies with ICERs greater than £20 000/QALY, the number of decision-modifying factors was comparable for positive and negative recommendations.ConclusionsMost DAP decisions were consistent with the ICER threshold. However, cost-effectiveness was not the only determining factor in decision making; recommendations also considered patient- and healthcare-centric factors and uncertainty.     

Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care

This article provides a critical analysis of the impact of health technology assessment (HTA) on priority setting in The Netherlands. It describes the limited steering powers of the Dutch government; its complex interactions with insurers, health-care providers, and patients; and the role of HTA in this context as an attempt to rationalize the debate about cost-effectiveness issues. HTA has been drawn upon for decision making on the health insurance package. Also, HTA findings have been linked to the national guideline development programs of the medical community. However, these impacts by no means have been straightforward. We argue that the political nature of the priority-setting debate asks for a broader approach to what constitutes HTA, and how it should be drawn upon in priority setting. Suggestions are made on how to do justice to the social dynamics of decision making and the behavior of stakeholders in health-care systems.     

Health Years in Total: A New Health Objective Function for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo find an alternative for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and equal value of life (EVL) measures. Despite the importance of QALY in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)—because it captures the effects of both life expectancy and health-related quality of life (QOL) and enables comparisons across interventions and disease areas—its potential to be discriminatory towards patients with lower QOL presents a critical challenge that has resulted in the exclusion of its use in some public decision making (eg, US Medicare) on healthcare in the United States. Alternatives to QALY, such as EVL, have not gained traction because EVL fails to recognize the QOL gains during added years of life.MethodsWe present a new metric for effectiveness for CEA, health years in total (HYT), which overcomes both the specific distributional issue raised by QALY and the efficiency challenges of EVL.ResultsThe HYT framework separates life expectancy changes and QOL changes on an additive scale. HYT have the same axiomatic foundations as QALY and perform better than both QALY, in terms of the discriminatory implications, and EVL, in terms of capturing QOL gains during added years of life. HYT are straightforward to calculate within a CEA model. We found that thresholds of $34 000/HYT and $89 000/HYT correspond to CEA thresholds of $50 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY, respectively.ConclusionsThe HYT framework may provide a viable alternative to both the QALY and the EVL; its application to diverse healthcare technologies and stakeholder assessments are important next steps in its development and evaluation.     

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of influenza immunization programs

BackgroundSeasonal influenza immunization programs vary widely across jurisdictions. In Canada, some provinces offer universal programs while others target specific population groups. However, whether targeted or universal programs provide more benefit and value-for-money is unclear. The cost-effectiveness of influenza immunization programs was systematically reviewed to inform policy.MethodsCitation databases and the grey literature were searched for economic evaluations of influenza immunization programs. Eligible studies were appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist with supplemental WHO vaccine-related questions. Data from high quality studies was extracted and the studies reviewed.ResultsA total of 41influenza immunization studies were identified. Of these, 31 were high quality. For pregnant and postpartum women, vaccinating all versus only high risk women study results ranged from dominance (less costly and more effective) to $9773 per QALY gained (societal) and from dominance to $58,000 per QALY gained (healthcare system). Studies of vaccinating all versus only high risk children found vaccination to be dominant to $47,000 per QALY gained (societal), and dominant to $18,000 per QALY gained (healthcare system). Vaccinating high risk adults was highly cost-effective and vaccinating health care workers resulted in $35,000 per QALY gained. Results for healthy working adults were mixed and sensitive to vaccine uptake, efficacy, and productivity loss.ConclusionsFrom the societal perspective, vaccination was cost-effective for children, pregnant and postpartum women, high risk groups, and in some cases, healthy working age adults. Immunization programs using group administration are more cost-effective than programs using individual administration. The perspective, programmatic design, setting, and inclusion of herd immunity affects cost-effectiveness. In regions with targeted programs, re-evaluating “high risk” criteria and consideration of a universal program is warranted.     

Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs

BackgroundIn the UK, approval decisions by Health Technology Assessment bodies are made using a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold, the value of which is based on little empirical evidence. We test the feasibility of estimating the “true” value of the threshold in NHS Scotland using information on marginal services (those planned to receive significant (dis)investment). We also explore how the NHS makes spending decisions and the role of cost per QALY evidence in this process.Data and methodsWe identify marginal services using NHS Board-level responses to the 2012/13 Budget Scrutiny issued by the Scottish Government, supplemented with information on prioritisation processes derived from interviews with Finance Directors. We search the literature for cost-effectiveness evidence relating to marginal services.ResultsThe cost-effectiveness estimates of marginal services vary hugely and thus it was not possible to obtain a reliable estimate of the threshold. This is unsurprising given the finding that cost-effectiveness evidence is rarely used to justify expenditure plans, which are driven by a range of other factors.Discussion and conclusionsOur results highlight the differences in objectives between HTA bodies and local health service decision makers. We also demonstrate that, even if it were desirable, the use of cost-effectiveness evidence at local level would be highly challenging without extensive investment in health economics resources.     

Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the impact of recommendations based upon health technology assessment (HTA) represents a challenge for both HTA agencies and healthcare policy makers. This research sought to understand factors affecting the uptake of HTA recommendations to support decision making with respect to the introduction of three health technologies. METHODS: Using a multidimensional framework, based upon a combination of theoretical models, a case study was conducted. A total of twenty-eight semistructured interviews were done with physicians from fifteen hospitals and other stakeholders in Catalonia. Interview content was analyzed iteratively and classified according to theoretical dimensions and contextual factors. RESULTS: At the sociopolitical level, factors related to the organization and financing of the health system were found to affect the utilization of HTA recommendations. At the healthcare organization level, existing collaborations between the hospital and the HTA agency favored the integration of recommendations into practices. Formalism in the organization also influenced the utilization of HTA recommendations. At the professional level, the high degree of autonomy of specialists, the importance of peers and collegial control, and the definition of professional roles and responsibilities influenced physicians' willingness to integrate HTA recommendations into their practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a comprehensive framework to understand the complex dynamics that affect adoption of health technologies in organizational and professional practices. The findings suggest some avenues to promote the integration of HTA recommendations into practices and, thus, increase the utilization of scientific evidence to support decision making in health care.     

A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment

ObjectivesHealth technology assessment (HTA) uses evidence appraisal and synthesis with economic evaluation to inform adoption decisions. Standard HTA processes sometimes struggle to (1) support decisions that involve significant uncertainty and (2) encourage continued generation of and adaptation to new evidence. We propose the life-cycle (LC)-HTA framework, addressing these challenges by providing additional tools to decision makers and improving outcomes for all stakeholders.MethodsUnder the LC-HTA framework, HTA processes align to LC management. LC-HTA introduces changes in HTA methods to minimize analytic time while optimizing decision certainty. Where decision uncertainty exists, we recommend risk-based pricing and research-oriented managed access (ROMA). Contractual procurement agreements define the terms of reassessment and provide additional decision options to HTA agencies. LC-HTA extends value-of-information methods to inform ROMA agreements, leveraging routine, administrative data, and registries to reduce uncertainty.ResultsLC-HTA enables the adoption of high-value high-risk innovations while improving health system sustainability through risk-sharing and reducing uncertainty. Responsiveness to evolving evidence is improved through contractually embedded decision rules to simplify reassessment. ROMA allows conditional adoption to obtain additional information, with confidence that the net value of that adoption decision is positive.ConclusionsThe LC-HTA framework improves outcomes for patients, sponsors, and payers. Patients benefit through earlier access to new technologies. Payers increase the value of the technologies they invest in and gain mechanisms to review investments. Sponsors benefit through greater certainty in outcomes related to their investment, swifter access to markets, and greater opportunities to demonstrate value.     

Retrospective economic evaluation of childhood 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in Australia: Uncertain herd impact on pneumonia critical

BackgroundRetrospective cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programs using routinely collected post-implementation data are sparse by comparison with pre-program analyses. We performed a retrospective economic evaluation of the childhood 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) program in Australia.MethodsWe developed a deterministic multi-compartment model that describes health states related to invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease. Costs (Australian dollars, A$) and health effects (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) were attached to model states. The perspective for costs was that of the healthcare system and government. Where possible, we used observed changes in the disease rates from national surveillance and healthcare databases to estimate the impact of the PCV7 program (2005–2010). We stratified our cost-effectiveness results into alternative scenarios which differed by the outcome states included. Parameter uncertainty was explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe PCV7 program was estimated to have prevented ∼5900 hospitalisations and ∼160 deaths from invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). Approximately half of these were prevented in adults via herd protection. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ∼A$161,000 per QALY gained when including only IPD-related outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of PCV7 remained in the range A$88,000–$122,000 when changes in various non-invasive disease states were included. The inclusion of observed changes in adult non-invasive pneumonia deaths substantially improved cost-effectiveness (∼A$9000 per QALY gained).ConclusionUsing the initial vaccine price negotiated for Australia, the PCV7 program was unlikely to have been cost-effective (at conventional thresholds) unless observed reductions in non-invasive pneumonia deaths in the elderly are attributed to it. Further analyses are required to explore this finding, which has significant implications for the incremental benefit achievable by adult PCV programs.     

Health technology assessment in Denmark

The Danish healthcare services are mainly provided by public sector institutions. The system is highly decentralized. The state has little direct influence on the provision of healthcare services. State influence is exercised through legislation and budget allocations. The main task of the state is to initiate, coordinate, and advise. Counties, which run the hospitals, also decide on the placement of services. The hospital sector is controlled within the framework of legislation and global budgets. General practitioners occupy a central position in the Danish healthcare sector, acting as gatekeepers to the rest of the system. The system works well, and its structure has resulted in steady costs of health care for a long period. There is no regulatory mechanism in the Danish health services requiring use of health technology assessment (HTA) as a basis for policy decisions, planning, or administrative procedures. However, since the late 1970s a number of comprehensive assessments of health technology have formed the basis for national health policy decisions. In 1997, after years of public criticism of the quality of hospital care and health technologies, and on the basis of a previously developed national HTA strategy, a national institute for HTA (DIHTA) was established. There seems to be a growing awareness of evidence-based healthcare among health professionals and a general acceptance of health economic analyses as a basis for health policy decision making. This progress is coupled with growing regional HTA activity in the health services. HTA seems to have a bright future in Denmark.     

Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay

For the assessment of value of new therapies in healthcare, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies often review the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Some HTA agencies accept a higher cost per QALY gained when treatment is aimed at prolonging survival for patients with a short expected remaining lifetime, a so-called end-of-life (EoL) premium. The objective of this study is to elicit the existence and size of an EoL premium in cancer. Data was collected from 509 individuals in the Swedish general population 20–80 years old using a web-based questionnaire. Preferences were elicited using subjective risk estimation and the contingent valuation (CV) method. A split-sample design was applied to test for order bias. The mean value of a QALY was MSEK4.8 (€528,000), and there was an EoL premium of 4–10% at 6 months of expected remaining lifetime. Using subjective risk resulted in more robust and valid estimates of the value of a QALY. Order of scenarios did not have a significant impact on the WTP and the result showed scale sensitivity. Our result provides some support for the use of an EoL premium based on individual preferences when expected remaining lifetime is short and below 24 months. Furthermore, we find support for a value of a QALY that is above the current threshold of several HTA agencies.     

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in High Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Irish Healthcare Setting

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% in the Irish healthcare setting.MethodsEffectiveness inputs were derived from the 5-year analysis of KEYNOTE-024 phase III clinical trial. The intervention was pembrolizumab monotherapy; the comparator was a weighted average of the 5 chemotherapy regimens from the trial. The population included those with previously untreated advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC. A de novo partitioned survival model was developed. Survival modeling was done using Bayesian model averaging on fitted parametric functions. Costs included drug acquisition, treatment initiation, administration and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments, and terminal care. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from the literature and Irish sources. The model had a 20-year time horizon. The perspective taken was the Health Service Executive. A 4% discount rate was applied. Outcomes were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in terms of incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsThe model estimated a base case ICER of €54 237 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated an average ICER of €54 568 per QALY and a 11% probability of cost-effectiveness at the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold of €45 000 per QALY.ConclusionAt the current list price, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is not considered cost-effective for the treatment of advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC in the Irish healthcare setting.     

Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

ObjectivesWith complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies.MethodsA survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination.ResultsA total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were “methodological,” equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as “absent,” “insufficient,” “immature,” or “low quality” by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%).ConclusionsMost challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.     

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.