Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea

Health Policy

Volumn 119, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 577-587

  Bae, Green ^a,b   Bae, Eun Young ^c   Bae, SeungJin ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b Health Insurance Review Agency   (South Korea)

^c Gyeongsang National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; International comparison; Value

Indexed keywords

ABATACEPT; AMBRISENTAN; BUPRENORPHINE; DARUNAVIR; DULOXETINE; ELTROMBOPAG; ETRAVIRINE; EXENDIN 4; GENERIC DRUG; LAPATINIB; MIGLUSTAT; NEW DRUG; OMALIZUMAB; PALIPERIDONE; RALTEGRAVIR; RANIBIZUMAB; RECOMBINANT GLUCAN 1,4 ALPHA GLUCOSIDASE; RIVAROXABAN; SAXAGLIPTIN; SILDENAFIL; SITAGLIPTIN; SOLIFENACIN; TELBIVUDINE; TREPROSTINIL; VENLAFAXINE;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HUMAN; KOREA; PHARMACOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG SCREENING; ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PRESCRIPTION; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOUTH KOREA;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG EVALUATION; DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS; FORMULARIES AS TOPIC; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84933671326     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.011     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Clemente J., Marcuello C., Montañés A. Pharmaceutical expenditure, total health-care expenditure and GDP. Health Economics 2008, 17(10):1187-1206.
2. Bach P.B. Limits on medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 2009, 360(6):626-633.
3. Hillner B.E., Smith T.J. Efficacy does not necessarily translate to cost effectiveness: a case study in the challenges associated with 21st-century cancer drug pricing. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009, 27(13):2111-2113.
4. Bae S., Lee S., Bae E., Jang S. Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version). PharmacoEconomics 2013, 31(4):257-267.
5. Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., Yong K., Lee K.M., Manns B.J. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions. JAMA 2009, 302(13):1437-1443.
6. Levy A.R., Mitton C., Johnston K.M., Harrigan B., Briggs A.H. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions. PharmacoEconomics 2010, 28(10):813-830.
7. Morgan S.G., McMahon M., Mitton C., Roughead E., Kirk R., Kanavos P., et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs 2006, 25(2):337-347.
8. Oliver A., Mossialos E., Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(01):1-10.
9. Lexchin J., Mintzes B. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. American Journal of Managed Care 2008, 14(9):581-588.
10. Spinner D., Birt J., Walter J., Drummond M., Copley-Merriman C. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions. ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2013, 5:69-85.
11. Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 3rd ed.
12. Ferner R.E., Hughes D.A., Aronson J.K. NICE and new: appraising innovation. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2010, 340:b5493.
13. Garner S. How does NICE value innovation?. Drug Development Research 2010, 71(8):449-456.
14. Hughes D.A. Value-based pricing incentive for innovation or zero net benefit?. PharmacoEconomics 2011, 29:731-735.
15. Brouwer W.B.F., Culyer A.J., van Exel N.J.A., Rutten F.F.H. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. Journal of Health Economics 2008, 27(2):325-338.
16. Kennedy I. Appraising the value of innovation and other benefits: a short study for NICE 2009.
17. Walker A.B.C., Booth C., Brown A., Paterson K. How much good do new medicines do?. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology 2009, 105(Suppl. 1):O23.
18. Laupacis A. Economic evaluations in the Canadian common drug review. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24(11):1157-1162.
19. Park S.E., Lim S.H., Choi H.W., Lee S.M., Kim D.W., Yim E.Y., et al. Evaluation on the first 2 years of the positive list system in South Korea. Health Policy 2012, 104(1):32-39.
20. Office of Fair Trade The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: an OFT market study office of fair trade 2007.
21. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Public Summary Documents for Recommendations. 〈http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA030014040000&cmsurl=/cms/information/04/01/05/04/select_result.html〉 (accessed May 10th 2013).
22. Australian Government Department for Health and Ageing. Pubic Summary Documents by products 〈http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/public-summary-documents-by-product〉 (accessed May 20th 2013).
23. Canadian Agencies for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CEDAC Final Recommendation on Consideration and Reasons for Recommendation. 〈http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr?&status=1&order_field=drug_name〉 (accessed May 12th 2013).
24. Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Find a review 〈http://www.pcodr.ca/wcpc/portal/Home/AboutpCODR?_afrLoop=2325842528682000&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=frowle0bn_4〉 (accessed July 13 2013).
25. Country-specific pharmacoeconomic guidelines. [database on the Internet]. Available from 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/COUNTRYSPECIFIC.asp〉 (accessed: September 2012).
26. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies 2006, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Canada. 3rd ed.
27. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3) 2008.
28. Rocchi A., Miller E., Hopkins R.B., Goeree R. Common drug review recommendations an evidence base for expectations. PharmacoEconomics 2012, 30(3):229-246.
29. Harris A.H., Hill S.R., Chin G., Li J.J., Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Medical Decision Making 2008, 28(5):713-722.
30. Hill S.R., Mitchell A.S., Henry D.A. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA 2000, 283(16):2116-2121.
31. Kwon S. Health care financing in Asia: key issues and challenges. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 2011, 23(5):651-661.
32. Raftery J.P. Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Medical Journal of Australia 2008, 188(1):26-28.
33. Vegter S., Rozenbaum M.H., Postema R., Tolley K., Postma M.J. Review of regulatory recommendations for orphan drug submissions in The Netherlands and Scotland: focus on the underlying pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Clinical Therapeutics 2010, 32(9):1651-1661.
34. Yang B.M., Bae E.Y., Kim J.H. Economic evaluation and pharmaceutical reimbursement reform in South Korea's National Health Insurance. Health Affairs 2008, 27(1):179-187.