Table 1 Profile of respondents to the questionnaire
From: Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot
Country | Number of respondents | Respondent type | HTA agencies the respondents are involved with | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient representative on HTA agency’s committee | Member of a patient group [that potentially submits to an HTA agency] | |||
United Kingdoma | 2 | -- | 2 | The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC); All Wales Medicine Strategy Group (AWMSG); Various (rare diseases focus) |
The Netherlands | 1 | -- | 1 | Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN, The National Health Care Institute) |
Canadaa | 6 | 3 | 3 | Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR); Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) |
Australiaa | 1 | -- | 1 | Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC); Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) |
Taiwan | 2 | -- | 2 | The National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA); Pharmaceutical Benefits and Reimbursement Scheme (PBRS) |
Japan | 1 | -- | 1 | None |
Italy | 1 | -- | 1 | None |
Israel | 1 | -- | 1 | None |