Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1229-1236

  Svensson, Mikael ^a   Nilsson, Fredrik O L ^b   Arnberg, Karl ^b  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; SWEDEN; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHARMACOECONOMICS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STATE MEDICINE; SWEDEN;

EID: 84944516806     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0307-6     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ISPOR. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research: Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines around the World. Available at: http://www.ispororg/peguidelines/index.asp. 2013.
2. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7(5):518–28.
3. Anell A, Persson U. Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: do health-economic evaluations support decision making? Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(3):274–9.
4. 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(13):1437–43.
5. Yong JH, Beca J, Hoch JS. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(3):229–36.
6. TLV. Ska TLV genomföra hälsoekonomiska bedömningar av rekvistionsläkemedel? The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency, Stockholm. 2009;DNR 2731/2009.
7. Shah SMB, Barron A, Klinger C, Wright JSF. A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Sweden. Health Policy. 2014;116(1):27–36.
8. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). PharmacoEconomics. 2001;19(11):1103–9.
9. 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 Mak. 2008;28(5):713–22.
10. 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;13:437–52.
11. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77(3):352–67.
12. Cerri KH, Knapp M, Fernandez J-L. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context. Health Econ Policy Law. 2013;FirstView:1–23.
13. Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2014. doi:10.1002/hec.3086
14. Linley W, Hughes D. Reimbursement decisions of the all wales medicines strategy group. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(9):779–94.
15. Hugosson K, Engstrom A. Threshold value for a QALY—correlation with disease severity and decsion uncertainty (Poster Abstract). Value Health. 2008;11:A49
16. Persson U, Svensson J, Pettersson B. A new reimbursement system for innovative pharmaceuticals combining value-based and free market pricing. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(4):217–25.
17. Franken M, Nilsson F, Sandmann F, Boer A, Koopmanschap M. Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(9):781–97.
18. TLV. Läkemedelsförmånsnämndens allmänna råd. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. 2003;LFNAR 2003:2:Tillgänglig online: http://www.tlv.se/tlv/regelverk/allmanna-rad/.
19. TLV. Samsca (tolvaptan): Hälsoekonomiskt beslutsunderlag. Dnr 606/2013. 2014. Available at: http://www.tlv.se/Upload/Halsoekonomiska_bedomningar/Sammanfattning_samsca.pdf.
20. Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station: Stata Press; 2006.
21. Socialstyrelsen. Nationella riktlinjer för sjukdomsförebyggande metoder 2011: Hälsoekonomiskt underlag. Socialstyrelsen, Stockholm. 2011; Retrieved Aug 2014 at: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/nationellariktlinjerforsjukdomsforebyggandemetoder/Documents/nr-sjukdomsforebyggande-halsoekonomisktunderlag.pdf.
22. Danzon P, Towse A, Mestre-Ferrandiz J. Value-based differential pricing: efficient prices for drugs in a global context. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):294–301.
23. Hultkrantz L, Svensson M. The value of a statistical life in Sweden: a review of the empirical literature. Health Policy. 2012;108:302–10.
24. Dakin HA, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. CHE Research Paper 93, Centre for Health Economics, The University of York. 2013.
25. Baker R, Chilton S, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee MW, Lancsar E, Mason H, et al. Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:435–47.
26. Coast J. Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants. Health Expect. 2001;4(4):243–52.
27. Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):172–80.