Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 7, Issue , 2015, Pages 463-476

  Griffiths, Elizabeth A ^a   Hendrich, Janek K ^a   Stoddart, Samuel D R ^a   Walsh, Sean C M ^a  

^a PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Decision making; Health technology assessment; Incremental cost effectiveness ratio; QALY

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; STANDARD; TREND STUDY;

EID: 84940755738     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11786981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S87462     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005
2. HTAGlossary.net. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Available from: http://htaglossary.net/health+technology+assessment+(HTA). Accessed December 17, 2014
3. Simoens S. How to assess the value of medicines? Front Pharmacol. 2010;1:115
4. Orphanet. About orphan drugs. Available from: http://www.orpha.net/onsor/cgi-bin/Education_AboutOrphanDrugs.php?lng=EN. Accessed February 5, 2015
5. Drummond M. Challenges in the economic evaluation of orphan drugs. Eurohealth. 2008;14(2):16-17 6. Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the orphan drug system: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease ŧreatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74
6. NICE. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/­appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2. Accessed December 4, 2014
7. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed December 10, 2014
8. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reim- bursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001; 19(11):1103-1109
9. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR Global Health Care Systems Road Map. Available from: http:// www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Default.asp. Accessed December 4, 2014
10. SMC. Carglumic acid 200mg dispersible tablets (Carbaglu) No 299/06. Available from: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/carglumic_acid_200mg_Carbaglu_299_06.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2015
11. PBAC. Everolimus, tablets, 2.5 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg, Afinitor® - April 2013. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/ elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-04/everolimus. Accessed February 10, 2015
12. CADTH. CEDAC final recommendation for sunitinib (Sutent™). Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr_­complete_Sutent_March-28-07.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2015
13. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352-367
14. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines - a consultation. Available from: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/medicineconsultation.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2014
15. Nature News Blog. UK backs away from ‘value-based pricing’ for drugs. Available from: http://blogs.Nature.com/news/2013/11/uk-backs-away-from-value-based-pricing-for-drugs.html. Accessed June 24, 2015
16. NICE Decision Support Unit, Miners A, Cairns J, Wailloo A. Ðepartment of Health proposals for including wider societal benefits into value based pricing: a description and critique. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/DSU-Wider-Societal-Benefits-Briefing-Paper.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2015
17. Linley WG, Hughes DA. 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. 2013;22: 948-964
18. Vegter S, Rozenbaum MH, Postema R, Tolley K, Postma MJ. Review of regulatory recommendations for orphan drug submissions in the Netherlands and Scotland: focus on the underlying pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Clin Ther. 2010;32(9):1651-1661
19. NICE. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal 2014. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg19/chapter/Acknowledgements. Accessed December 4, 2014
20. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437-452
21. SMC. Scottish Medicines Consortium: What we do (remit). Available from: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/What_we_do/ Remit. Accessed December 4, 2014
22. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302: 1437-1443
23. CADTH. Procedure for the CADTH Common Drug Review. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/CDR_Procedure.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2014
24. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(5): 713-722
25. Mauskopf J, Chirila C, Masaquel C, et al. Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:92-100
26. Chim L, Kelly PJ, Salkeld G, Stockler MR. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:463-475