International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: Insights for the US

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 813-830

  Levy, Adrian R ^a,b   Mitton, Craig ^c   Johnston, Karissa M ^b   Harrigan, Brian ^b   Briggs, Andrew H ^b,d  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ICON PLC   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

decision making; formularies; health policy; reimbursement; treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INVESTMENT; MEDICARE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; NETHERLANDS; SCOTLAND; SWEDEN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 77956542062     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11536150-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong.
2. America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, HR3200, 111th Cong
3. America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong.
4. Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, HR3962, 111th Cong.
5. AcademyHealth. Summary of comparative effectiveness research legislation in the 111th congress [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chsr.org/Summary- of-CERL.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
6. Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 July; 25 Suppl. 1: 1-6
7. Office of Technology Assessment. Policy implications of the computed tomography (CT) scanner. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978
8. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology, opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing House, 1976
9. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003 Feb; 63 (2): 121-132
10. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Global networking for effective healthcare [online]. Available from URL: http://www.inahta.org/HTA [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
11. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 July; 25 Suppl. 1: 7-9
12. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (3): 244-258
13. O'Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, et al. Health technology assessment: lessons learned from around the world. An overview. Value Health 2009 June; 12 Suppl. 2: S1-5
14. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003 Sep 24; 290 (12): 1624-1632
15. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research: IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med 2009 Jul 30; 361 (4): 325-328
16. Garrison Jr LP, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al. Using realworld data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 2007 Sep; 10 (5): 326-335
17. Luce B, Cohen RS. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 July; 25 Suppl. 1: 33-41
18. US Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership. Recovery Act allocates $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios. html [Accessed 2009 Jul 16]
19. Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/index.html [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
20. Drummond M, Banta D. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl. 1: 178-181
21. AWBZ: General Exceptional Medical Expenses Act [fact-sheet; online]. Available from URL: http://www.euraxess. nl/documents/awbz.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 11]
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Expenditure by funding source and transaction type [online]. Available from URL: http://stats.oecd.org/Index. aspx?DataSetCode=RFIN1 [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
23. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union [observatory studies series no. 11]. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health systems and Policies, 2008
24. Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. Euro Observer 2009; 11 (1): 1-4 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro. who.int/-data/assets/pdf-file/0019/80335/ EuroObserver- spring2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
25. Exter A, Hermans H, Dosljak M, et al. Health care systems in transition: Netherlands. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health systems and Policies, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/-data/assets/pdf-file/0006/95136/E84949.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
26. Klatt I. Understanding the Canadian health care system. J Financial Serv Prof 2000; 54: 42-51
27. Canada Health Act of 1985, C. 6, s. 1 Paris V, Docteur E. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimburs-ment policies in Canada. Paris: OECD, 2007. Report no.: DELSA/HEA/HWP (2006) 4
28. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Frequently asked questions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/faq [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
29. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CDR process [online]. Available from URL: http://www. cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr/process [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
30. Medicare Australia. About Medicare Australia [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/about/whatwedo/pbs.jsp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
31. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. PBAC outcomes: outcomes of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee meetings [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing. nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-outcomes-full.htm [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
32. Glenngard AH, Hjalte F, Svensson M, et al. Health systems in transition: Sweden. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2005
33. Carlsson P, Jonsson E, Werko L, et al. Health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16 (2): 560-575
34. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20 (1): 44-54
35. Anell A, Persson U. Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: do health-economic evaluations support decision making? Eur J Health Econ 2005 Sep; 6 (3): 274-279
36. Jonsson E. History of health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 Suppl. 1: 42-52
37. International Society for PharmacoEconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Sweden-pharmaceutical [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/Sweden. asp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
38. Van De Ven WP, Schut FT. Universal mandatory health insurance in the Netherlands: a model for the United States? Health Aff (Millwood) 2008 May/June; 27 (3): 771-781
39. Tolley K, Postma M. Pharmacoeconomics and market access in Europe: case studies in Scotland and the Netherlands. ISPOR Connections 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/News/articles/Oct06/econom ic-eval.asp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
40. Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondsraad). Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council, 1999 Mar 25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/PE-guide lines-english-Netherlands.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
41. Mo?se P, Docteur E. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in Sweden for 2004. Paris: OECD, 2007. Report no. 28.
42. Polsky MJ, Stolk EA, Brouwer WBF. The use and impact of HTA in decision making in the Netherlands. Euro Observer 2009; 11 (1): 7-9
43. Dear J, O'Dowd C, Timoney A, et al. Scottish Medicines Consortium: an overview of rapid new drug assessment in Scotland. Scot Med J 2007; 52 (3): 20-26
44. Scottish Medicines Consortium [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org/smc/CCC-First Page.jsp [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
45. Scottish Medicines Consortium annual report 2008 Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. scottishmedicines.org. uk/smc/files/NHS%20SMC%20AR%2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 26]
46. Zentner A, Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technology Assessment 2005; 1: Doc09
47. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009 Oct 7; 302 (13): 1437-1443
48. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000 Apr 26; 283 (16): 2116-2121
49. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2009
50. Karnon J, Carlton J, Czoski-Murray C, et al. Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modeling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2009; 7 (1): 1-9
51. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs: same or different? Value Health 2009; 12 (4): 402-404
52. Tierney M, Manns B. Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review. CMAJ 2008 Feb 12; 178 (4): 432-435
53. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. Breast Cancer 2008; 12 Suppl. 1: S16-27
54. Federal/provincial/territorial Ministerial Task Force on the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National pharmaceuticals strategy progress report. Ottawa (ON): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2006
55. Schubert F. Health technology assessment: the pharmaceutical industry perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (2): 184-191
56. Kendall T, McGoey L, Jackson E. If NICE was in the USA. Lancet 2009 Jul 25; 374 (9686): 272-273
57. Breckenridge A, Woods K, Walley T. Medicines regulation and health technology assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010 Feb; 87 (2): 152-154
58. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989 Apr; 9 (2): 142-149
59. MehrezA,GafniA. Healthy-years equivalents versus qualityadjusted life years: in pursuit of progress. Med Decis Making 1993 Oct; 13 (4): 287-292
60. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
61. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002 Aug 31; 360 (9334): 711-715
62. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D. Is the United States ready for QALYs? Health Aff (Millwood) 2009 Sep; 28 (5): 1366-1371
63. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 2009 Mar; 12 Suppl. 1: S10-5
64. Dix Smith M, Drummond M, Brixner D. Moving the QALY forward: rationale for change. Value Health 2009 Mar; 12 Suppl. 1: S1-4
65. Levy AR, Harrigan B, Johnston K, et al. Comparative effectiveness research through the looking glass. Med Dec Making 2009; 29 (6): NP6-8
66. Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative effectiveness research: implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's Report. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (4): 328-330
67. D'Agostino Sr RB, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, et al. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 2001 Jul 11; 286 (2): 180-187
68. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799-806
69. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's 'coverage with evidence development'. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006 Sep; 25 (5): 1218-1230
70. Whicher DM, Chalkidou K, Dhalla IA, et al. Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers. Milbank Q 2009 Sep; 87 (3): 585-606
71. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23 (4): 425-432
72. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Woods B. How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Med Decis Making 2009 May; 29 (3): 273-281
73. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Woods BS, et al. No study left behind: a network meta-analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer demonstrating the importance of considering all relevant data. Value Health 2009 Sep; 12 (6): 996-1003
74. Pocock SJ. Safetyofdrug-eluting stents: demystifying network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007 Dec 22; 370 (9605): 2099-2100
75. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009; 338: b1147
76. Song F, Glenny AM, Altman DG. Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Control Clin Trials 2000 Oct; 21 (5): 488-497
77. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002 Aug 30; 21 (16): 2313-2324
78. Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008 Feb 2; 336 (7638): 251-254
79. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009 June; 87 (2): 339-367
80. Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care 2008 Sep; 14 (9): 581-588