Abstract
Authorities in a number of countries rely increasingly on cost-effectiveness analysis to determine reimbursement status or clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals. This study compared the use of health economic evidence across five reimbursement committees (Australia, Ontario and British Columbia in Canada, Finland, and France) and one clinical guidance committee (England and Wales). Health economic evidence was found to support decision making, although cost-effectiveness is less important in some identifiable situations. Since the relative importance of cost-effectiveness varies, it will be difficult to implement a single explicit threshold. Further research may make patterns of decision making, distributional concerns, and the importance of different criteria more transparent, which would help to narrow the gap between the theory and practice of health economic evaluations. While the use of health economic evidence and the outcome of decision making are similar across committees, there is presently only limited knowledge to what extent prescribing patterns are influenced by decisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
OECD (2002) OECD health data: a comparative analysis of 30 OECD countries (CD-ROM). OECD: Paris
Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg MJ (2000) The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making—a European survey. Health Policy 52:179–192
Drummond M (2001) The use of economic evidence by healthcare decision makers. Eur J Health Econ 2:2–3
Birkett DJ, Mitchell AS, McManus PA (2001) A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia. Health Aff (Millwood)120:104–114
Rinta S (2001) Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in Finland. Eur J Health Econ 2:128–135
Furniss J (2001) Price control in France: budgeting for medical benefit? Eurohealth 7:9–10
Angus D, Karpetz HM (1998) Pharmaceutical policies in Canada—issues and challenges. Pharmacoeconomics 1 [14 Suppl]:81–96
Sedgley M (2001) Profit or loss? Fulfilling dual aims in pharmaceutical price regulation in the UK. Eurohealth 7:9–10
Persson U, Anell A, Nordling S (2002) Pris, subvention och läkemedel—användning av hälsoekonomiska utvärderingar. [Price, reimbursement and pharmaceuticals—the use of health economic evaluations, in Swedish]. IHE: Lund
Sketris IS, Hill S (1998) The Australian national publicly subsidized Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: any lessons for Canada? Can J Clin Pharmacol 5:111–18
Anis A, Rahman T, Schechter M (1998) Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 13):119–126
Laupacis A (2002) Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programmes: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? CMAJ 166:44–47
PPR (1998) France's Commission de Transparence. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 3:75–77
Cookson R (2000) ASTEC Non-EU case study on Australia. London School of Economics and Political Science: London
George B, Harris A, Mitchell A (1999) Cost effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia 1991–96. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Working Paper no. 89
Anonymous (2000) Ontario guidelines for drug submissions and evaluations. III. Drug Submission review process
PausJenssen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS (2003) Ontario's Formulary Committee—how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics 21:285–294
Anis A, Gagnon Y (2000) Using economic evaluations to make formulary decisions—so much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 18:315–326
Lamberg M (2000) Pharmaceutical industry experience on pharmaco-economic justification for drug pricing application in 1998–1999. Pharma Industry Finland: Helsinki
Anonymous (2000) Curbing the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure in Finland. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 5:100–105
Department of Health (1999) Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. NHS Executive: Leeds
Buxton M (2001) Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Value Health 4:212–216
NICE (2001) Guide to the technology appraisal process. Technology appraisals process series no 1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London (http://www.nice.org.uk)
NICE (2001) Guidance for manufactures and sponsors. Technology appraisals process series no 5.: National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London (http://www.nice.org.uk)
Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 323:1300–1303
SCRIP (2001) NICE seeks independence. SCRIP 2680:5
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F (2001) Health economic guidelines–similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4:225–250
PPR (2000) The Ontario drug benefit formulary: a leader in Canada. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 5:334–336
PPR (2003) NICE on NICE. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 7:362–365
NICE (2002) Imatinib (Glivec) is NICE's 50th technology appraisal guidance. NICE 2002/052 (www.nice.org.uk)
Clarke JTR, Amato D, Deber RB (2001) Managing public payment for high-cost. High-benefit treatment: enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease in Ontario. CMAJ 165:595
Laupacis A et al (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 146:473–481
Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA (2000) Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analysis—a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. JAMA 283:2116–2121
Le Pen C, Priol G, Lilliu H (2003) What criteria for pharmaceuticals reimbursement? An empirical analysis of the evaluation of "medical service rendered" by reimbursable drugs in France. Eur J Health Econ 4:30–36
Stolk E et al (2000) Cost utility analysis of sildenfil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ 320:1–6
Ubel PA, DeKay ML, Baron J, Asch DA (1996) Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints—is it equitable? N Engl J Med 334:1174–1177
Schwappach DLB (2003) Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 12:255–267
Salkeld G, Randy M, Short L (2000) The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ Lett 4:4–9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anell, A. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. HEPAC 5, 28–35 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-003-0195-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-003-0195-0