Assessing the value for money of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand-PHARMAC's approach to cost-utility analysis

New Zealand Medical Journal

Volumn 126, Issue 1378, 2013, Pages

  Grocott, Rachel ^a   Metcalfe, Scott ^a   Alexander, Paul ^a   Werner, Rachel ^a  

^a Pharmaceutical Management Agency   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE COURSE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVIVAL RATE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; NEW ZEALAND;

DRUG;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 84880130937     PISSN: 00288446     EISSN: 11758716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. PHARMAC. Operating policies and procedures of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency ("PHARMAC"), Third Edition, January 2006. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2005/12/22/231205.pdf
2. Bennett W, McNee W, Metcalfe S, Wright JM. Use of statins In New Zealand, subsidy of statins is limited to particular groups of patients. BMJ 1997;315:161. http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7122/1615
3. Braae R, McNee W, Moore D. Managing pharmaceutical expenditure while increasing access. The pharmaceutical management agency (PHARMAC) experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Dec;16(6):649-60.
4. Moodie P, Metcalfe S, McNee W. Response from PHARMAC: difficult choices. N Z Med J. 2003;116:U361. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1170/361/
5. Metcalfe S, Dougherty S, Brougham M, Moodie P. PHARMAC measures savings elsewhere to the health sector. N Z Med J. 2003;116:U362. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1170/362/
6. A prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis, Version 1.1 PHARMAC: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/6/pfpa-v-1-1.pdf
7. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis, Version 2 PHARMAC: Wellington, New Zealand, 2007. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/7/pfpa-2_0.pdf
8. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis, Version 2.1 PHARMAC: Wellington, New Zealand, 2012. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2012/06/26/PFPAFinal.pdf
9. Grocott R, Metcalfe S. PHARMAC's updated guidelines for cost-utility analyses, with new QALYs per $1M metric. N Z Med J. 2012;125:U5274. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1358/5274/
10. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf
11. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. 3rd edition. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf
12. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 4.3. Canberra: PBAC, 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-index
13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
14. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, Luce BR, Weinstein MC, Gold MR. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11:159-68.
15. Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med. 2006;11:35-8.
16. Evidence-Based Practice and Critical Appraisal (updated 4 February 2011). Effective Practice, Informatics & Quality Improvement (EPIQ), at Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland. http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/depts/epi/epiq/ebp.aspx
17. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993 Oct-Dec;13(4):322-38.
18. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 Apr;13(4):397-409.
19. Brennan A, Akehurst R. Modelling in health economic evaluation. What is its place? What is its value? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):445-59.
20. Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1043-53.
21. Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices--utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):94-111.
22. Kawachi I, Bethwaite P, Bethwaite J. The use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the economic appraisal of health care. N Z Med J. 1990 Feb 14;103(883):46-8.
23. Schwartz S, Richardson J, Glasziou PP. Quality-adjusted life years: origins, measurements, applications, objections. Aust J Public Health. 1993 Sep;17(3):272-8.
24. Prieto L, Sacristán JA. Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Dec 19;1:80.
25. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect 2002;5:210-22.
26. Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ 1991;10(1):21-41. Erratum in: J Health Econ 1993 Jul;12(2):237.
27. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005 Feb;14(2):197-208. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.924/pdf
28. Singer P, McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J. Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. J Med Ethics. 1995;21:144-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376689/pdf/jmedeth00296-0016.pdf
29. Harris J. Double jeopardy and the veil of ignorance--a reply. J Med Ethics. 1995;21:151-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376690/pdf/jmedeth00296-0023.pdf
30. McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J, Singer P. Double jeopardy, the equal value of lives and the veil of ignorance: a rejoinder to Harris. J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):204-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376998/pdf/jmedeth00303-0014.pdf
31. Smith MD, Drummond M, Brixner D. Moving the QALY forward: rationale for change. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S1-4. http://www.ispor.org/meetings/invitational/QALY/Paper1.pdf
32. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S5-9. Erratum in: Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):1065. http://www.ispor.org/meetings/invitational/QALY/Paper2revised.PDF
33. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S10-5. http://www.ispor.org/meetings/invitational/QALY/Paper3.pdf
34. Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S18-26.
35. Nord E. A review of synthetic health indicators. Background paper prepared for the OECD Directorate for Education, Employment, Labour, and Social Affairs, June 1997.
36. Devlin NJ, Hansen P, Kind P, Williams AH. Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations-a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Economics. 2003; 12:529-44.
37. Metcalfe S, Rodgers A, Werner R, Schousboe C. PHARMAC has no cost-effectiveness threshold. N Z Med J. 2012;125:99-101. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1350/5083/
38. Craig BA, Black MA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-health benefit: two sides of the same coin. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001;1:37-46. http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/pdf/10.1586/14737167.1.1.37
39. Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Löthgren M, Tambour M. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21:39-48. http://adisonline.com/pharmacoeconomics/Abstract/2003/21010/Advantages_of_Using_the_N et_Benefit_Approach_for.3.aspx
40. Metcalfe S, Grocott R. Comments on "Simoens, S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6,2950-2966"-New Zealand in fact has no cost-effectiveness threshold. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7:1831-4. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/4/1831/
41. Grocott R. Applying Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis in the health sector: 12 years of experience. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2009;9:181-7 http://www.expertreviews. com/doi/abs/10.1586/erp.09.2
42. West RR, McNabb R, Thompson AG, Sheldon TA, Grimley Evans J. Estimating implied rates of discount in healthcare decision-making. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(38):1-60.
43. Grocott R, Metcalfe S. PHARMAC's updated guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses, with new discount rate. N Z Med J. 2007;120:U2641. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1258/2641/