Research Triangle Park, NC - Josephine Mauskopf, VP, Health Economics and Katherine Copley-Merriman, VP, Outcomes co-authored a new study published in the Journal of ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research - Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.

The study found that there is considerable variability in the clinical evidence considered by HTA authorities for drug-listing recommendations. They reviewed processes for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, the Common Drug Review (CDR) in Canada, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales.

"Health-technology assessment plays an important role in informing drug-reimbursement decision-making in many countries," said Kati Copley-Merriman, "This research was conducted to better understand the evidence used by different agencies in reaching their recommendations."

This study highlights the importance for drug manufacturers not only to heed submission guidelines published by HTA agencies but also to understand de facto evidence preferences to maximize the potential for reimbursement.