Ethics in HTA: Examining the “Need for Expansion”

Document Type : Perspective

Authors

1 National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands

2 Department of Health, Ethics and Society, School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

3 Ecorys Nederland, Sector Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

4 The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Gjøvik, Norway

5 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Abstract

The article by Daniels and colleagues on expanding the scope of health technology assessment (HTA) to embrace ethical analysis has received endorsement and criticism from commentators in this journal. Referring to this debate, we examine in this article the extent and locus of ethical analysis in HTA processes. An expansion/no-expansion framing of HTA is, in our view, not very fruitful. We argue that meaningfulness and relevance to the needs of the population are what should determine the extent of ethics in HTA. Once ‘relevance’ is the guiding principle, engaging in ethical analysis becomes inevitable as values are all over the place in HTA, also in how assessors frame research questions. We also challenge dividing the locus of ethical analysis into assessment and appraisal as this would detach HTA from its purpose, ie, supporting legitimate decision-making. Ethical analysis should therefore be considered integral to the HTA process.

Highlights

Commentary Published on this Paper

  • Expanding HTA – Correcting a Misattribution, Clarifying the Scope of HTA and CEA; Comment on “Ethics in HTA: Examining the ‘Need for Expansion’”

          Abstract | PDF

 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  Daniels N, Porteny T, Urrutia  J. Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(1):1-3. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187
  2. Culyer AJ. HTA - algorithm or process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):501-505. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.59
  3. Jansen MP, Helderman JK, Boer B, Baltussen R. Fair processes for priority setting: putting theory into practice: Comment on "Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(1):43-47. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.85
  4. Syrett K. Expanded HTA, legitimacy and independence: Comment on "Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(9):565-567. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.75
  5. Sandman L, Gustavsson E. Beyond the black box approach to ethics: Comment on "Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(6):393-394. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.43
  6. Byskov J, Maluka SO, Marchal B, et al. The need for global application of the accountability for reasonableness approach to support sustainable outcomes: Comment on "Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy." Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;6(2):115-118. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.106
  7. Hofmann B, Cleemput I, Bond K, et al. Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014;30(6):579-586. doi:10.1017/S0266462314000671
  8. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: a descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463-469.
  9. Droste S, Gerhardus A. [Ethical aspects of short health technology assessments: a systematic review]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2003;97:711-715.
  10. Daniels N, van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment, deliberative process, and ethically contested issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2016;32(1-2):10-15. doi:10.1017/S0266462316000155
  11. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: an exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:50-54.
  12. Garrido MV, Gerhardus A, Rottingen JA, Busse R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196-202.
  13. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis & Praxis. 2004;2:175-193.
  14. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis. 2005;3:277-295.
  15. Ashcroft RE. Health technology assessment. In: Chadwick R, ed. Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2012:556-565.
  16. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, et al. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615-618. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  17. Husereau D, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L, Thomas S. Changing health technology assessment paradigms? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):191-199. doi:10.1017/S0266462316000386
  18. Culyer AJ. Deliberative processes in decisions about health care technologies: combining different types of evidence, values, algorithms and people. London: Office of Health Economics; 2009.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 January 2017
  • Revise Date: 21 March 2017
  • Accept Date: 25 March 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 October 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics