Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 69-85

  Spinner, Daryl S ^a   Birt, Julie ^b   Walter, Jeffrey W ^a   Bowman, Lee ^b   Mauskopf, Josephine ^a   Drummond, Michael F ^c   Copley Merriman, Catherine ^a  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence; Health technology assessment; Reimbursement decisions

Indexed keywords

ABATACEPT; ADALIMUMAB; AMFEBUTAMONE; BETA INTERFERON; CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL; CYCLOSPORIN; DABIGATRAN; DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG; EFALIZUMAB; EMTRICITABINE; ENOXAPARIN; ENTECAVIR; ETANERCEPT; FONDAPARINUX; GLATIRAMER; GOLIMUMAB; INFLIXIMAB; LAMIVUDINE; LEFLUNOMIDE; METHOTREXATE; NATALIZUMAB; PLACEBO; RITUXIMAB; RIVAROXABAN; TELBIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR; TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITOR; UNINDEXED DRUG; USTEKINUMAB; VARENICLINE;

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; COMMON DRUG REVIEW; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG USE; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEPATITIS B; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE; PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PSORIASIS; REIMBURSEMENT; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; TECHNOLOGY; TOBACCO DEPENDENCE; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM;

EID: 84873143788     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11786981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S39624     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258.
2. Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14:581-588.
3. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions. JAMA. 2009;302:1437-1443.
4. Rocchi A, Miller E, Hopkins RB, Goeree R. Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations? Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:229-246.
5. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton NC, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:337-347.
6. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121-132.
7. Hutton J, Trueman P, Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511-517.
8. Mauskopf J, Walter J, Birt J, Bowman L, Copley-Merriman C, Drummond M. Differences among formulary submission guidelines: implications for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:261-270.
9. Trueman P, Hurry M, Bending M, Hutton J. The feasibility of harmonizing health technology assessments across jurisdictions: a case study of drug eluting stents. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25: 455-462.
10. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:685-693.
11. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437-452.
12. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28: 713-722.
13. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies inhealth. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca. Accessed December 9, 2012.
14. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:71-76.
15. Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102:126-135.