Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Priority setting for pharmaceuticals

The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OECD (2002) OECD health data: a comparative analysis of 30 OECD countries (CD-ROM). OECD: Paris

  2. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond M (2001) The use of economic evidence by healthcare decision makers. Eur J Health Econ 2:2–3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Birkett DJ, Mitchell AS, McManus PA (2001) A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia. Health Aff (Millwood)120:104–114

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rinta S (2001) Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in Finland. Eur J Health Econ 2:128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Furniss J (2001) Price control in France: budgeting for medical benefit? Eurohealth 7:9–10

    Google Scholar 

  7. Angus D, Karpetz HM (1998) Pharmaceutical policies in Canada—issues and challenges. Pharmacoeconomics 1 [14 Suppl]:81–96

  8. Sedgley M (2001) Profit or loss? Fulfilling dual aims in pharmaceutical price regulation in the UK. Eurohealth 7:9–10

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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

  10. Sketris IS, Hill S (1998) The Australian national publicly subsidized Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: any lessons for Canada? Can J Clin Pharmacol 5:111–18

    Google Scholar 

  11. Anis A, Rahman T, Schechter M (1998) Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 13):119–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. PPR (1998) France's Commission de Transparence. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 3:75–77

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cookson R (2000) ASTEC Non-EU case study on Australia. London School of Economics and Political Science: London

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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

  16. Anonymous (2000) Ontario guidelines for drug submissions and evaluations. III. Drug Submission review process

  17. PausJenssen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS (2003) Ontario's Formulary Committee—how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics 21:285–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Anis A, Gagnon Y (2000) Using economic evaluations to make formulary decisions—so much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 18:315–326

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lamberg M (2000) Pharmaceutical industry experience on pharmaco-economic justification for drug pricing application in 1998–1999. Pharma Industry Finland: Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  20. Anonymous (2000) Curbing the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure in Finland. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 5:100–105

    Google Scholar 

  21. Department of Health (1999) Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. NHS Executive: Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  22. Buxton M (2001) Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Value Health 4:212–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

  24. NICE (2001) Guidance for manufactures and sponsors. Technology appraisals process series no 5.: National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London (http://www.nice.org.uk)

  25. Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 323:1300–1303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. SCRIP (2001) NICE seeks independence. SCRIP 2680:5

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F (2001) Health economic guidelines–similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4:225–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. PPR (2000) The Ontario drug benefit formulary: a leader in Canada. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 5:334–336

    Google Scholar 

  29. PPR (2003) NICE on NICE. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 7:362–365

    Google Scholar 

  30. NICE (2002) Imatinib (Glivec) is NICE's 50th technology appraisal guidance. NICE 2002/052 (www.nice.org.uk)

  31. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stolk E et al (2000) Cost utility analysis of sildenfil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ 320:1–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Salkeld G, Randy M, Short L (2000) The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ Lett 4:4–9

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Anell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-003-0195-0

Keywords

Navigation