Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in wales: A discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 345-355

  Linley, Warren G ^a   Hughes, Dyfrig A ^a  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG PREFERENCE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84876942080     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0030-0     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, et al. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):475-95.
2. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(11):1103-9. (Pubitemid 33135698)
3. Grégoire J-P, McNeil P, Skilton K, et al. Inter-provincial variation in Government drug formularies. Can J Public Health. 2001;92:307-13.
4. PausJenssen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS. Ontario's formulary committee: how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(4):285-94. (Pubitemid 36337724)
5. Tilson L, O'Leary A, Usher C, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland: a review of the process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(4):307-22.
6. Mason A, Drummond M, Ramsel S, et al. Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3234-8.
7. Chim L, Kelly PJ, Salkeld G, et al. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. Pharmacoconomics. 2010;28(6):463-75.
8. Devlin N, Parkin P. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437-52. (Pubitemid 38660393)
9. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352-67. (Pubitemid 43946523)
10. Linley WG, Hughes DA. Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(9):779-94.
11. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insiurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:713-22.
12. Stafinski T, Menon D, Davis C, et al. Role of centralised review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117-86.
13. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77. (Pubitemid 351989058)
14. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55-64.
15. De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145-72.
16. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, et al. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):685-93. (Pubitemid 47124170)
17. Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:198-204.
18. Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Rundle-Thiele SR. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy: a pilot study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(2):73-9.
19. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. 2012. Guidelines for appraising medicines. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/ Guidelines%20for%20appraising%20medicines%20July%202012.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
20. Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgements. Value Health. 2006;9:303-11. (Pubitemid 44337783)
21. World Health Organisation. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva: WHO; 2008. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global-burden-disease/2004- report-update/en/index.html. Accessed 30 Apr 2010.
22. Orme B. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd ed. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC; 2010.
23. Hann GJ, Shapira SS. A catalogue and computer programme for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. Report 66-C-165. Schenectady (NY): General Electric Research and Development Centre; 1996.
24. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Working Paper EDM 08-1; 2008. http://www.cserge.ac. uk/sites/default/files/edm-2008-01.pdf. Accessed 01 Mar 2012.
25. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. AWMSG policy on appraising life extending, end-of-life medicines. 2011. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/ Documents/371/AWMSG%20Policy%20on%20appraising%20life- extending%2C%20end%20of%20life%20medicines.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
26. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. AWMSG policy relating to ultra-orphan medicines. 2012. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/ AWMSG%20policy%20relating%20to%20Ultra-orphan%20Medicines%20July%202012.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
27. Department of Health. 2010 Oct 27. The cancer drugs fund: a consultation. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/dh-digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/ digitalasset/dh-120931.pdf. Accessed 30 Sep 2011.
28. Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision-making. Brit J Clin Pharmaco. 2010;70:346-9.
29. Department of Health. 2010. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/ Closedconsultations/DH-122760. Accessed 30 Sept 2011.
30. Hughes DA. Value-based pricing: incentive for innovation or zero net benefit? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(9):731-5.
31. Linley WG, Hughes DH. Societal views on NICE, Cancer Drugs Fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. doi: 10.1002/hec.2872
32. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.