Mixed claims in Health Technology Assessment: The case of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) uses explicit methods to determine the value of a health technology. This typically results in several claims regarding the effects that are expected to follow from the use of a health technology in a particular context. These claims seem to capture conclusions based solely on facts, but they often combine empirical information with normative presuppositions. Claims that have this character reflect (implicit) value judgments and have been labelled mixed claims. Not recognizing these normative components of such claims risks value inattention and value imposition, presenting results as self-evident and not in need of any moral justification. As proposed by Anna Alexandrova, to avoid these risks of value inattention and imposition we need rules to deal with mixed claims. According to her, when producing and evaluating mixed claims we need to unearth the invoked value presuppositions and check whether these presuppositions are invariant to disagreements. By applying these rules, the robustness of mixed claims can be checked: it can be evaluated whether their truth value is independent from the way in which their components, involving normative presuppositions, are conceptualized. This paper aims to illustrate the role of mixed claims in HTA, and expand upon the work by Alexandrova, by analyzing claims and recommendations presented in an HTA report on the introduction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in The Netherlands. Our results show that the report contains mixed claims, and that a normative analysis of these claims can help to clarify the normativity of HTA and evaluate the robustness of claims on alleged effects of a health technology.