Bulletin of Semashko National Research Institute of Public HealthBulletin of Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health2415-84102415-8429FSSBI «N.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health»1530Обзорная статьяMAIN TRENDS IN THE EVALUATION OF HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WORLD IN THE PERIOD FROM 1980 TO 2020: LITERATURE REVIEWMeshkovD. Odmitrymeshkov@mail.ruBezmelnitsynaL. Yublyu18@mail.ruCherkasovS. Ncherkasovsn@mail.ruSpasennikovaM. Gmspasennikova@gmail.comV.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control SciencesFederal Scientific and Clinical Center for Children and AdolescentsN.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health161220212162508042022Copyright © 2021,2021The article considers the development of health technology assessment: it reflects the dynamics of the introduction the technology assessment agencies into the healthcare decision-making system from 1980 to 2020. It was established that during the study period 60 organizations were created in 31 countries of the world. An analysis of the dependence of expert structures on the level of domestic gross product revealed that in 75% of countries with low per capita domestic gross product, there are no organizations evaluating health technologies. At average and above average levels, 50 per cent or more countries have the agencies, and in some cases the functions are distributed among several organizations. The study also examined the evolution of the applied methods, it was found that initially many countries used cost minimization methods and introduced thresholds of the indicator of readiness to pay into the system of decision-making on financing, while during the studied period there is the change from rigid evaluation criteria to multidisciplinary evaluation approaches.assessment of healthcare technologiesgross domestic productmethods of clinical and economic analysisthe willingness to pay thresholdMulticriteria decision analysisHTA Core Model ®HTA Core Model ®оценка технологий здравоохраненияваловый внутренний продуктметоды клинико-экономического анализапорог готовности платитьмультикритериальный дисперсный анализ1.Хабриев Р.У. Методологические основы фармакоэкономического анализа / Р.У. Хабриев, А.Ю. Куликов, Е.Е. Аринина. - Москва: Медицина, 2011. - 128 с.2.World Health Organization. Quality of care: A process of making strategic choices. - Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006. - 32 p.3.Zweifel P. Rationing of health care: is there an economic rationality to it? / P. Zweifel // Eur. J. Health Econ. - 2015. - № 8. - P. 797-800.4.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. - London: NICE. 2007. - 234 p.5.Hans R-U. Health Technology assessment: a Perspective from Germany / R-U Hans, P. Dauben // Value in Health. - 2009. - № 12. - P. 20-27.6.McIntyre D. Access as a policy-relevant concept in low- and middle-income countries / D. McIntyre, M. Thiede, S. Birch // Health Econ. Policy Law. - 2009. - № 4. - P. 179-193.7.Higgins A.M. Health economic methods: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit evaluations / A.M. Higgins, A.H. Harris // Crit. Care Clin. - 2012. - № 1. - P. 11-24.8.Simoens S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer / S. Simoens. - Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. - 2009. - Vol. 6. - № 12. - Р. 2950-2966.9.Angevine P.D. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses / P.D. Angevine, S. Berven // Spine. - 2014. - № 15. - P. 9-15.10.Simoens S. Health economic assessment: cost-effectiveness thresholds and other decision criteria /S. Simoens // Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. - 2010. - № 4. -Р. 1835-1840.11.Silva M.T. Budget impact analysis / M.T. Silva, E.N. da Silva, M.G. Pereira // Epidemiol. Serv. Saude. - 2017. - Vol. 26. - № 2. - P. 421-424.12.Watkins J.B. Improving the usefulness of budget impact analyses: a U.S. payer perspective / J.B. Watkins, D. Danielson // Value in Health. - 2014. - Vol. 17. - № 1. - P. 3-4.13.Frazгo T. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps / T. Frazгo, D. Camilo, E. Souza, R. Souza // BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. - 2018. - № 18. - P. 90-106.14.Kõrge K. Evaluation of the HTA core model for national health technology assessment reports: comparative study and experiences from European countries / K. Kõrge, N. Berndt, J. Hohmann et al. // Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. - 2017. - Vol. 33. - № 6. - P. 644-653.15.Khabriev R.U., Kulikov A.Yu., Arinina E.E. Metodologicheskie osnovy farmakoekonomicheskogo analiza [Methodological foundations of pharmacoeconomic analysis]. Moscow, Medicine, 2011. 128 p. (in Russian).16.World Health Organization. Quality of care: A process of making strategic choices. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006. 32 p.17.Zweifel P. Rationing of health care: is there an economic rationality to it? Eur. J. Health Econ, 2015,no. 8, pp. 797-800.18.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.London, NICE, 2007. 234 p.19.Hans R-U. Health Technology assessment: a Perspective from Germany. Value in Health, 2009, no. 12, pp. 20-27.20.McIntyre D., Thiede M., Birch S. Access as a policy-relevant concept in low- and middle-income countries. Health Econ. Policy Law, 2009, no. 4, pp. 179-193.21.Higgins A.M., Harris A.H. Health economic methods: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit evaluations. Crit. Care Clin., 2012, no. 1, pp. 11-24.22.Simoens S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2009, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 2950-2966.23.Angevine P.D., Berven S. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Spine, 2014, no. 15, pp. 9-15.24.Simoens S. Health economic assessment: cost-effectiveness thresholds and other decision criteria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2010, no. 4, pp. 1835-1840.25.Silva M.T., da Silva E.N., Pereira M.G. Budget impact analysis. Epidemiol. Serv. Saude, 2017, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 421-424.26.Watkins J.B., Danielson D. Improving the usefulness of budget impact analyses: a U.S. payer perspective. Value in Health, 2014, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3-4.27.Frazгo T., Camilo D., Souza E., Souza R. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2018, no. 18, pp. 90-106.28.Kõrge K., Berndt N., Hohmann J. et al. Evaluation of the HTA core model for national health technology assessment reports: comparative study and experiences from European countries. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care, 2017, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 644-653.