Table 1.
Description of the HTA Organizations and Their Respective Reviews
| HTA Organization | Organization Type | Year Formed | Overarching Question(s) Addressed by HTA and Distinguishing Features | Is Evidence Ranked or Recommendation Provided | HTA Review Availability | Range of Technologies Assessed | Capacity of Personalized Medicine Reviews (total No. of reviews issued) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCBS TEC | Association of private payers | 1985 | Does a technology meet 5 criteria? | No evidence ranking or recommendations are provided. | Public | Procedures using novel technologies; imaging tests; biologics and novel therapies (eg, vaccines); genetic testing | Lower volume (< 15 genomic reviews)16 |
| Judged by regulatory status, evidence quality, net health benefit, better than alternatives, benefits in the real world | |||||||
| ECRI | Private nonprofit | 1969 | Clinical effectiveness evaluation was based on key questions specific to topic. | No recommendations are provided. | Fee-based | Behavioral interventions; procedures using novel technologies; genetic tests; laboratory tests; novel treatments; imaging tests; home care technologies | Higher volume (> 15 reports on genomics)17 |
| 360-degree technology overview | |||||||
| EGAPP | Independent panel assembled by CDC | 2004 | Should a genomic technology be used in clinical practice? | Evidence is ranked, and recommendations for clinical practice are provided. | Public | Genetic technologies | Low volume (< 10 genomic reviews)18 |
| Specific focus on genomic technologies | |||||||
| Hayes | Private | 1996 | What is the strength of evidence for a specific technology? | Evidence is ranked A-D. No recommendations are provided. | Fee-based | Drugs and biologics; laboratory tests; imaging diagnostics; genetic tests; behavioral interventions; procedures using novel technologies; alternative medicine | High volume (> 100 reviews of genomics)19 |
| Assesses strength and direction (positive/negative) of evidence | |||||||
| ICER | Academic | 2006 | What is the comparative value of a technology (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness)? | Evidence is ranked. No recommendations are provided. | Public | Imaging diagnostics; procedures using novel technologies; comparison of treatment options | In planning20 |
| UpToDate | Private | 1992 | Clinical topic review, including relevant genomic and other technologies | Recommendations for clinical practice are provided. | Fee-based | Broad range of technologies and services for a specific disease, including procedures; diagnostic tests; treatments and health services | High volume (> 100 reports, including genetics)22 |
| USPSTF | Independent panel assembled by AHRQ | 1984 | Should a preventive service be used in clinical practice? | Evidence is ranked, and recommendations are provided. | Public | Preventive and screening services and technologies | Low volume (< 10 genomic reviews)21 |
| Specific focus on preventive services |
Abbreviations: AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; BCBS TEC, Blue Cross Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center; CDC, Centers for Disease Control; ECRI, Emergency Care Research Institute; EGAPP, Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention; HTA, health technology assessment; ICER, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; USPSTF, United States Preventive Services Task Force.