Assessing progression of health technology assessment implementation in Asia: a balanced scorecard for cross comparison of selected countries in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the use of health technology assessment (HTA) in Asia and lessons for countries seeking to advance HTA. METHODS: Build upon the research by Chootipongchaivat and the World Health Organization identifying eighteen "factors conducive to the development of HTA in Asia." These factors were used to create a balanced scorecard to assess the progress of HTA, measuring progress against each factor in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. A scoring system was used wherein: 1, No progress; 2, milestone at early stages, ad hoc HTA use; 3, progress on milestone but limited impact; 4, significant progress but limited remit; and 5, significant progress on milestone, routine HTA informs decisions. Total scores indicated progress of HTA while milestone scores provided contextual insights within countries. Literature reviews and expert interviews were used to complete scorecards. RESULTS: South Korea and Thailand scored highest with seventy-three and seventy-one points, respectively, while Vietnam scored lowest at 28.5. Advanced HTA programs have independent HTA agencies with a broad remit, explicit process and methods, network of researchers, and routine use of HTA. Taiwan and Malaysia fall in a middle tier, with established HTA programs with limited remit. The final tier with China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, emerging HTA processes. CONCLUSIONS: Universal Health Coverage goals have catalyzed expansion of HTA. Political will, technical expertise, and sustained financing remain challenges for sustainable HTA programs. Legislation supporting HTA is helpful but political will is key. Recommendations for regional collaboration are provided.

Exploring facilitators and barriers to introducing health technology assessment: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and codify the facilitators and barriers to help implementing partners institutionalize health technology assessment (HTA) successfully and navigate complex systems for health-related policy making. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed and gray literature articles examining HTA programs globally using six databases. Keywords used as a guide for capturing articles included "health technology assessment," "barrier," and "facilitator" and their synonyms. Search results were scrutinized for duplicates and screened through a review of titles and abstracts. A full-text review was conducted exploring articles' coverage of twenty-seven evaluation criteria across four primary areas of interest: barriers/facilitators, motivations, guidelines, and institutional frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 18,599 records were identified for duplication check, title, and abstract review. A total of 1,594 articles underwent full-text review, leading to a final synthesis of 262 studies. We found that ninety-seven articles discussed barriers/facilitators, with fifty-three of those discussing local capacity and unavailable human resources. Out of the sixty-six articles discussing motivations, forty-two cited the interest in supporting the decision-making process for, and promoting, appropriate resource allocation. Of the sixty-one articles that discussed guidelines and institutional framework, twenty-one articles described HTA as an independent national unit, and sixteen described their HTA unit as a unit within the Ministry of Health (MOH). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review unpacks the dynamic and relevant contexts for understanding the HTA institutionalization process to help policy makers and practitioners achieve tangible progress in confronting the most critical issues facing priority setting and HTA institutionalization.