Health economics methods advisory (HEMA): ICER: NICE, NIH, CADTH,

https://icer.org/news-insights/press-releases/icer-nice-and-canadas-drug-agency-convene-the-health-economics-methods-advisory/

ICER, along with England’s NICE - National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Canada's Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), announced the formation of the Health Economics Methods Advisory (HEMA) initiative. The goal of HEMA is to critically and independently research some of the most pressing topics in global health economics and health technology assessment (HTA) methods. 

ICER’s Chief Scientific Officer and Director of Health Technology Assessment Methods and Engagement, Dan Ollendorf, PhD, MPH stated, “Through this international collaboration, we are looking forward to examining the benefits and disadvantages of new methods in health economics and HTA. There is a need for independent research that can not only critically examine these topics but also assess their feasibility and practicality in HTA settings.” Nick Crabb, Chief Scientific Officer at NICE, and Nicole Mittmann, Chief Scientist at Canada’s Drug Agency, note their agreement on the importance of this aligned work.

BOSTON, February 12, 2025 – The USA-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) have announced the creation of the Health Economics Methods Advisory (HEMA) initiative. HEMA aims to independently and critically explore some of the most urgent issues in global health economics and health technology assessment (HTA) methods.

The HEMA initiative unites an independent working group of research experts, academics, and methodologists in health economics HTA, who possess both theoretical and practical expertise in supporting HTA. This group will explore issues likely to encompass topics related to health economic methods. The selection and prioritization of these topics by HEMA will be directed by a distinct steering committee, including representatives from the patient, payer, and life sciences sectors across all three countries.

ICER’s Chief Scientific Officer and Director of Health Technology Assessment Methods and Engagement, Dan Ollendorf, PhD, MPH stated, “Through this international collaboration, we are looking forward to examining the benefits and disadvantages of new methods in health economics and HTA. There is a need for independent research that can not only critically examine these topics but also assess their feasibility and practicality in HTA settings.” Nick Crabb, Chief Scientific Officer at NICE, and Nicole Mittmann, Chief Scientist at Canada’s Drug Agency, note their agreement on the importance of this aligned work.

HEMA will focus on accomplishing three main goals:

1. Examine selected topics — Through the working group and topic specific experts, HEMA will explore topics that include potential benefits, disadvantages, and uncertainties associated with methods, and couple this review with empirical investigation and worked examples where appropriate.

   
   

2. Provide guidance and recommendations to the HTA community — this guidance may relate to the adoption of novel methods, modifications that might be required, uncertainties in the application of certain methods, and suggestions for further research.

   
   

3. Coordinate the development of publications — these may include white papers, peer-reviewed articles, workshops, and webinars that focus on the conceptual and empirical applications of alternative methods, assess their applicability and feasibility in HTA settings, and share research and policy perspectives with a broad set of HTA stakeholders.

Who ICER is?

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent, non-profit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of health care interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. In collaboration with patients, clinical experts, and other key stakeholders, ICER analyzes the available evidence on the benefits and risks of these interventions to measure their value and suggest fair prices. ICER also regularly reports on the barriers to care for patients and recommends solutions to ensure fair access to prescription drugs.

The fundamental questions are few:

• Based on the evidence, how much better is a new treatment at extending or improving patients’ lives?

• What would a fair price be, based on the clinical evidence as well as patients’ perspectives about the outcomes that are most important to them?

• And how can patients, clinical experts, and insurers translate the evidence into insurance coverage that ensures the best patient outcomes?