Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations- A comparative analysis

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Mathes, Tim ^a   Jacobs, Esther ^a   Morfeld, Jana Carina ^a   Pieper, Dawid ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84884694562     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-371     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jösson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert UWE, Sullivan SD, Milbank Q 2010 88 2 256 276 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00598.x 20579285
2. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Brousselle A, Lessard C, Soc Sci Med 2011 72 6 832 839 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.008 21345563
3. Neue Arzneimittel 2011. Schwabe U, Fricke U, Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2012 Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2012 43 126
4. The changing role of economic evaluation in valuing medical technologies. Rotter JS, Foerster D, Bridges JF, Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2012 12 6 711 723 10.1586/erp.12.73 23252354
5. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 4 355 371 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006 16605282
6. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care: practice, problems, and potential. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J, Int J Technol Assess 1993 9 1 26 36 10.1017/S0266462300003007 (Pubitemid 23070075)
7. Methodenhandbuch für health technology assessment version 1.2012. Fröschl B, Bornschein B, Brunner-Ziegler S, Conrads-Frank A, Eisenmann A, Gartlehner G, et al. Gesundheit Österreich GmbH (GÖG) 2012 24077040
8. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J, Health Technol Assess 2004 8 36 ii iv ix-xi, 1-158 15544708
9. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation: arguments for a national approach. Vale L, Value Health 2010 13 6 859 861 10.1111/j.1524-4733. 2010.00765.x 20701729
10. Guidelines on health economic evaluation- consensus paper. Walter E, Zehetmayr S, Inst Pharmaeconomic Res 2006
11. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket 2003
12. Allgemeine Methoden zur Bewertung von Verhältnissen zwischen Nutzen und Kosten. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2009 24077978
13. Arbeitspapier Kostenbestimmung. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2009 24077978
14. Assessing cost effectiveness. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the guidelines manual. National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2009
15. Cost resource manual. Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand, Pharm Manage Agency New Zealand 2012
16. Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand, Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) Explained Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand 2009
17. Economics section of the MSAC guidelines. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Medical Services Advisory Committee 2005
18. Guidance for outcomes research 'for the assessment of the costeffectiveness of in-patient medicines'. College voor zorgverzekeringen, College voor zorgverzekeringen 2008
19. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2008
20. Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland (AHTAPol), Guideline for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland 2009
21. Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies. Silva AE, Pinto CG, Sampaio C, Pereira JA, Drummond M, Trindade R, INFARMED 1998
22. Cleemput I, Van Wilder P, Vrijens F, Huybrecht M, Ramaekers D, Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations in Belgium Belgian Federal Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2008
23. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. College voor zorgverzekeringen, College voor zorgverzekeringen 2006
24. Medical Services Advisory Committee, Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines Australian Government-Department of Health and Aging 2005
25. Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland Health Information and Quality Authority 2010
26. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (3rd Edition) Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 2006
27. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H, Health Technology Assessment Handbook Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA); National Board of Health (NBoH) 2007
28. Kosten und Nutzen in der Medizin, Die Analyse von " Effizienzgrenzen": Allgemeine Methoden zur Bewertung von Verhältnissen zwischen Nutzen und Kosten. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2009 24077978
29. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, [ http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/ providers/pub/drugs/economic/economic-mn.html ] [05.07.2012]
30. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand (PHARMAC), Pharm Manage Agency New Zealand 2012
31. Technischer Anhang Kostenbestimmung. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2008 24077978
32. Technischer Anhang Modellierung. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2008 24077978
33. Technischer Anhang Unsicherheit. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2008 24077978
34. Allgemeine Methoden (Nutzenbewertung): Version 4.0. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2011 24077978
35. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), Australian Government-Department of Health 2008 24076500
36. Arbeitspapier Modellierung. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen 2009 24077978
37. Cleemput I, Van den Bruel A, Kohn L, Vlayen J, Vinck I, Thiry N, Ramaekers D, Search for Evidence & Critical Appraisal: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Belgian Federal Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2007 24078837
38. Cost-benefit analysis. Robinson R, BMJ 1993 307 6909 924 926 10.1136/bmj.307.6909.924 8241859 (Pubitemid 23293512)
39. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Health economics 2001 10 8 779 787 10.1002/hec.635 11747057 (Pubitemid 34041389)
40. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, Davies LM, Eastwood A, Health Technol Assess 2004 8 49 ii iv 1-192 15544708
41. Cross-cultural differences in health-related quality of life of people with epilepsy: Findings from a European study. Buck D, Jacoby A, Baker G, Ley H, Steen N, Qual Life Res 1999 8 8 675 685 10.1023/A:1008916326411 10855341 (Pubitemid 30331115)
42. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Shiroiwa T, Sung Y-K, Fukuda T, Lang H-C, Bae S-C, Tsutani K, Health Econ 2010 19 4 422 437 10.1002/hec.1481 19382128
43. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ, Health Econ 2011 20 1 2 15 10.1002/hec.1612 21154521
44. Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. Brouwer WBF, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, Rutten FFH, BMJ 2005 331 7514 446 448 10.1136/bmj.331.7514.446 16110075 (Pubitemid 41176388)
45. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S, J Health Serv Res Policy 2004 9 2 110 118 10.1258/135581904322987535 15099459 (Pubitemid 38568540)
46. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD, Value Health 2012 15 6 835 842 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014 22999133
47. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making. Andronis L, Barton P, Bryan S, Health Technol Assess 2009 13 29 1 61 iii, ix-xi 19846022
48. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Volume 3rd Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
49. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO, BMJ 1996 313 7052 275 283 10.1136/bmj.313.7052. 275 8704542 (Pubitemid 26254740)
50. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Schwarzer R, Siebert U, Int J Technol Assess 2009 25 3 305 314 10.1017/S0266462309990092
51. Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jonsson B, Luce BR, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD, International Working Group for HTAA, Int J Technol Assess 2010 26 1 71 78
52. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, Sullivan SD, Int J Technol Assess 2008 24 3 244 258 discussion 362-248 (Pubitemid 351950160)
53. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Malik F, Reed SD, Rutten F, Sculpher M, Severens J, Value Health 2009 12 4 409 418 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x 19900249
54. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M, Int J Technol Assess 2005 21 2 165 171 (Pubitemid 40656544)
55. Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations? Drummond M, Neumann P, Jonsson B, Luce B, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD, Int J Technol Assess 2012 28 2 159 165 10.1017/S0266462312000098
56. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: current status, challenges and potential. Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R, Observatory Studies Series No 14 2008 eunethta