Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: Current status and comparisons

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 579-595

  Bracco, Andrea ^a   Krol, Marieke ^b  

^a AMGEN INC   (United States)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

health economics; health technology assessment; pharmacoeconomic guidelines; reimbursement; societal perspective

Indexed keywords

ABSENTEEISM; BUDGET; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; PRESCRIPTION; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REIMBURSEMENT; REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSION GUIDELINE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; RISK MANAGEMENT; STANDARDIZATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WORK CAPACITY;

ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EUROPE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 84886406048     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2013.837766     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Cranovsky R, Schilling J, Faisst K et al. Health technology assessment in Switzerland. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(2), 576-590 (2000).
2. Tilson L, O'Leary A, Usher C, Barry M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland: a review of the process. Pharmacoeconomics 28(4), 307-22 (2010).
3. Cleemput I, van WP. History of health technology assessment in Belgium. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25 (Suppl. 1), 82-87 (2009).
4. van Oostenbruggen MF, Jansen RB, Mur K, Kooijman H. Penny and pound wise: pharmacoeconomics from a governmental perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 23(3), 219-226 (2005).
5. Rochaix L, Xerri B. National Authority for Health: France. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 58, 1-9 (2009).
6. Nuijten MJ, Szende A, Kosa J et al. Health care reform in six Central European countries. A focus on health economic requirements in the drug pricing and reimbursement processes. Eur. J. Health Econ. 4(4), 286-291 (2003).
7. Nizankowski R, Wilk N. From idealistic rookies to a regional leader: the history of health technology assessment in Poland. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25 (Suppl 1), 156-162 (2009).
8. Nasser M, Sawicki P. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 57, 1-12 (2009).
9. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines-similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4(3), 225-250 (2001).
10. Jacobs P, Ohinmaa A, Brady B. Providing systematic guidance in pharmacoeconomic guidelines for analysing costs. Pharmacoeconomics 23(2), 143-153 (2005).
11. Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJ, Evers SM. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health 13(5), 519-527 (2010).
12. Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF. Analysis sans frontieres: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions? Pharmacoeconomics 24(11), 1087-1099 (2006).
13. Drummond MF. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. The ways forward. Pharmacoeconomics 6(6), 493-497 (1994).
14. Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F et al Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur. J. Heath Econ. 11(5), 513-520 (2010).
15. Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines zur gesundheitsokonomischen Evaluation Konsenspapier [Guidelines for health-economic evaluations in Austria]. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 156(23-24), 628-632 (2006).
16. Manual for the standardization of clinical and economic evaluation. Berne, Switzerland: BSV (Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office); 2000.
17. Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Drug Inf. J. 35, 189-201 (2001).
18. Cleemput I, van WP, Huybrechts M, Vrijens F. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health 12(4), 441-449 (2009).
19. Szende A, Mogyorosy Z, Muszbek N et al. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3(3), 196-206 (2002).
20. Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am. J. Manag. Care 13(4), 211-217 (2007).
21. van Exel J, Bobinac A, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W. The invisible hands made visible: recognizing the value of informal care in healthcare decision-making. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 8(6), 557-561 (2008).
22. Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. J. Health Econ. 29(4), 549-556 (2010).
23. Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Health effects in significant others: separating family and care-giving effects. Med. Decis. Making 31(2), 292-298 (2011).
24. Dixon S, Walker M, Salek S. Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 24(1), 43-53 (2006).
25. Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJ, Looren de JS et al. A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: measuring the impact of informal care giving. Qual. Life Res. 20(6), 875-887 (2011).
26. Brouwer W, van Exel N, Baltussen R, Rutten F. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar-or is it? Value Health 9(5), 341-347 (2006)
27. Roy S, Madhavan SS. Making a case for employing a societal perspective in the evaluation of Medicaid prescription drug interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 26(4), 281-296 (2008).
28. Jonsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(4), 357-359 (2009).
29. van der Zee J, Kroneman MW. Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7, 94 (2007).
30. Johannesson M. A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy 33(1), 59-66 (1995).
31. Drummond M. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 2(1), 1-4 (1992).
32. Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ. 24(4), 751-773 (2005).
33. Keech M. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 19 (Suppl 2), 27-31 (2001).
34. Anis AH, Gagnon Y. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 18(1), 55-62 (2000).
35. Atthobari J, Bos JM, Boersma C et al. Adherence of pharmacoeconomic studies to national guidelines in the Netherlands. Pharm. World Sci. 27(5), 364-370 (2005).
36. Longworth L, Sculpher MJ, Bojke L, Tosh JC. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(2), 180-187 (2011).