Are economic evaluations an important tool in vaccine policy decisions?

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 507-511

  Jacobs, Philip ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; health economics; immunizations; vaccine policy; vaccines

Indexed keywords

INFLUENZA VACCINE; PNEUMOCOCCUS VACCINE;

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PNEUMOCOCCAL INFECTION; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; VACCINATION;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC POLICY; VACCINES;

EID: 80053477007     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.11.58     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 146(4), 473-481 (1992).
2. Drummond M, Sorenson C. Nasty or nice? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health 12(Suppl. 2), S8-S13 (2009).
3. Jacobs P, Roos NP. Standard cost lists for healthcare in Canada. Issues in validity and inter-provincial consolidation. Pharmacoeconomics 15(6), 551-560 (1999). (Pubitemid 29256516)
4. Detsky AS, Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA 298(2), 221-224 (2007). (Pubitemid 47057770)
5. Wilensky GR. The policies and politics of creating a comparative clinical effectiveness research center. Health Aff. 28(4), w719-w729 (2009).
6. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients? notes, and interviews. BMJ 329(7473), 999 (2004).
7. Eddama O, Coast J. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation. Health Policy 89(3), 261-270 (2009).
8. Hoffman C, von der Schulenburg G. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European study. Health Policy 52, 179-192 (2000).
9. Hutton J, Brown RE. Use of economic evaluation in decision making: what needs to change? Value Health 5(2), 65-66 (2002). (Pubitemid 34274862)
10. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking-the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv. Res. 8, 270 (2008).
11. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 12(Suppl. 1), S10-S15 (2009).
12. Sheridan C. Vaccine market boosters. Nat. Biotechnol. 27(6), 499-501 (2009).
13. Jacobs P, Yim R, Ohinmaa A et al. Economics of Childhood Immunizations in Canada: Data Book. Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (2007).
14. Kresse H, Rovini H. Influenza vaccine market dynamics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8(11), 841-842 (2009).
15. Beutels P, Scuffham PA, MacIntyre CR. Funding of drugs: do vaccines warrant a different approach? Lancet Infect. Dis. 8(11), 727-733 (2008).
16. Lieu TA, Cochi SL, Black SB et al. Cost-effectiveness of a routine varicella vaccination program for US children. JAMA 271(5), 375-381 (1994). (Pubitemid 24037912)
17. Jacobs P, Ohinmaa A. A comparison of the use of economics in vaccine expert reviews. Vaccine 28(16), 2841-2845 (2010).
18. Lilly MB, Laporte A, Coyte PC. Do they care too much to work? The influence of caregiving intensity on the labour force participation of unpaid caregivers in Canada. J. Health Econ. 29(6), 895-903 (2010).
19. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Preventing pneumoccal disease among infants and young children: recommendations. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 49(RR09), 1-38 (2000).
20. Williams A. Welfare economics and health status measurement. In: Health, Economics, and Health Economics. van der Gaag J, Perlman M (Ed.). North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 271-281 (1981).
21. Nohynek H. The Finnish decision-making process to recommend a new vaccine. J. Public Health 16, 275-280 (2008).
22. Erickson LJ, De WP, Farand L. An analytical framework for immunization programs in Canada. Vaccine 23(19), 2470-2476 (2005).
23. World Health Organization. WHO Guide for Standardization of Economic Evaluations of Immunization Programmes. Vaccine (11), 2356-2359 (2010).
24. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/ index.asp
25. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 3rd edition. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottowa, Canada (2006) http://cadth.ca/ media/pdf/186- EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf
26. ACIP: guidance for health economics studies www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/ acip/economic-studies.htm
27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: appraising life-extending, end of life treatments www.nice.org.uk/media/88A/F2/ SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL.pdf
28. Appraising the value of innovation and other benefits. National Institute for Clinical Excellence London, England (2009) www.nice.org.uk/media/98F/5C/ KennedyStudyFinalReport.pdf
29. Vaccine european new integrated collaboration effort http://venice. cineca.org/vaccines.html