A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) uses evidence appraisal and synthesis with economic evaluation to inform adoption decisions. Standard HTA processes sometimes struggle to (1) support decisions that involve significant uncertainty and (2) encourage continued generation of and adaptation to new evidence. We propose the life-cycle (LC)-HTA framework, addressing these challenges by providing additional tools to decision makers and improving outcomes for all stakeholders. METHODS: Under the LC-HTA framework, HTA processes align to LC management. LC-HTA introduces changes in HTA methods to minimize analytic time while optimizing decision certainty. Where decision uncertainty exists, we recommend risk-based pricing and research-oriented managed access (ROMA). Contractual procurement agreements define the terms of reassessment and provide additional decision options to HTA agencies. LC-HTA extends value-of-information methods to inform ROMA agreements, leveraging routine, administrative data, and registries to reduce uncertainty. RESULTS: LC-HTA enables the adoption of high-value high-risk innovations while improving health system sustainability through risk-sharing and reducing uncertainty. Responsiveness to evolving evidence is improved through contractually embedded decision rules to simplify reassessment. ROMA allows conditional adoption to obtain additional information, with confidence that the net value of that adoption decision is positive. CONCLUSIONS: The LC-HTA framework improves outcomes for patients, sponsors, and payers. Patients benefit through earlier access to new technologies. Payers increase the value of the technologies they invest in and gain mechanisms to review investments. Sponsors benefit through greater certainty in outcomes related to their investment, swifter access to markets, and greater opportunities to demonstrate value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".