Assessing the added value of health technologies: Reconciling different perspectives

Value in Health

Volumn 16, Issue 1 SUPPL., 2013, Pages S7-

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Tarricone, Rosanna ^b   Torbica, Aleksandra ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness; health technology assessment; patient participation; quality adjusted life year

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SOCIETY;

EID: 84872344931     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.007     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. T. Tan-Torres Edeger, R. Baltussen, and T. Adam Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2003 World Health Organization Geneva
2. M.D. Rawlins, and A.J. Culyer National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments BMJ 329 2004 224 227
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diabetes (types 1 and 2) - long acting insulin analogues (TA53). 2002. Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA53. [Accessed July 28, 2012].
4. P. Dolan, R. Edlin, and A. Tsuchiya The Relative Social Value of Health Gains to Different Beneficiaries: Final Report to NICE 2008 National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence London
5. R. Baker, I. Bateman, and C. Donaldson Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY project Health Technol Assess 14 2010 1 161
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E4A/79/SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL.pdf. [Accessed March 25, 2011].
7. M.F. Dummond, D. Wilson, and P. Kanavos Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 2007 36 42
8. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Methods for Assessment of the Relation of Benefits to Costs in the German Statutory Health Care System: Version 3.0. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, 2009.
9. P. Neumann, J.T. Cohen, and J.K. Hammitt Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents Health Econ 21 2012 238 251
10. J.F.P. Bridges, A.B. Hauber, and D. Marshall Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force Value Health 14 2011 403 413
11. A. Mühlbacher, J.F.P. Bridges, and S. Bethge Prioritization and weighting of patient-relevant endpoints as part of the IQWiG's efficiency frontier method in Germany Value Health 14 2011 A73 74
12. Eucomed. The medical technology industry in Europe, 2011. Available from: http://www.eucomed.org/medical-technology. [Accessed March 30, 2012].
13. EFPIA. The pharmaceutical industry in figures (2010 ed.). Available from: http://www.efpia.eu/Content/Default.asp?PageID=563. [Accessed April 15, 2012].
14. R. Tarricone Cost-of-illness analysis: what room in health economics? Health Policy 77 2006 51 63
15. S. Bartoli, G. Aguzzi, and R. Tarricone Impact on quality of life of urinary incontinence and overactive bladder: a systematic literature review Urology 75 2010 491 500
16. Ciani O, Grassi D, Tarricone R. An economic perspective on urinary tract infections: the 'costs of resignation'. Clin Drug Investig. In press.
17. US Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and the Congress, 2009. Available from: www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt. pdf. [Accessed April 15, 2012].
18. European Union Pharmaceutical Forum, High Level Pharmaceutical Forum 2005-2008. Final report, 2008. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/ docs/ev-20081002-frep-en.pdf. [Accessed April 15, 2012].
19. M.F. Drummond, A. Griffin, and R. Tarricone Economic evaluation for devices and drugs - same or different? Value Health 12 2009 402 404
20. M.E. Backhouse, M. Wonder, and E. Hornby Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies: a pilot study Value Health 14 2011 608 615
21. J. Abelson, M. Giacomini, P. Lehoux, and F.P. Gauvin Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice Health Policy 82 2007 37 50
22. J. Abelson, P.G. Forest, and J. Eyles Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes Soc Sci Med 57 2003 239 251
23. P. Lehoux, G. Daudelin, O. Demers-Payette, and A. Boivin Fostering deliberations about health innovation: what do we want to know from publics? Soc Sci Med 68 2009 2002 2009
24. M.W. Calnan The patient's perspective Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14 1998 24 34
25. D. Menon, and T. Stafinski Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11 2011 75 89
26. D. Hailey, and Nordwall Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22 2006 497 499
27. F.P. Gauvin, J. Abelson, and M. Giacomini It all depends: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies Soc Sci Med 70 2010 1518 1526
28. F.P. Gauvin, J. Abelson, and M. Giacomini Moving cautiously: public involvement and the health technology assessment community Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27 2011 43 49
29. K. Facey, A. Boivin, and J. Gracia Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26 2010 334 340
30. J.F. Bridges, and C. Jones Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 2007 30 35
31. F. Izquierdo, J. Gracia, and M. Guerra Health technology assessment-based development of a Spanish breast cancer patient decision aid Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27 2011 363 368
32. J. Abelson, P.G. Forest, A. Casebeer, and G. Mackean Will it make a difference if I show up and share? A citizens' perspective on improving public involvement processes for health system decision-making J Health Serv Res Policy 9 2004 205 212
33. M.P. Gagnon, D. Lepage-Savary, and J. Gagnon Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level BMC Health Serv Res 9 2009 54
34. M.F. Drummond, J.S. Schwartz, and B. Jönsson Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 2008 244 258
35. P.J. Neumann, M.F. Drummond, and B. Jönsson Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26 2010 71 78
36. M.F. Drummond, P. Neumann, and B. Jönsson Can we reliably benchmark HTA organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28 2012 159 165
37. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines. 2010. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/ groups/dh-digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh-122793.pdf. [Accessed July 28, 2012].
38. M.E. Chernew, A.B. Rosen, and A.M. Fendrick Value based insurance design Health Affairs 26 2007 w195 203
39. S.D. Sullivan, J. Watkins, B. Sweet, and S.D. Ramsey Health technology assessment in healthcare decisions in the United States Value Health 12 Suppl. 2 2009 S39 44
40. M.F. Drummond, and A. Towse Is it time to rethink the role of patient co-payments for pharmaceuticals in Europe? Eur J Health Econ 13 2012 1 5