Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 59-76

  EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 7, Subgroup 3, ^f   Heintz, Emelie ^a,b   Gerber Grote, Andreas ^c   Ghabri, Salah ^d   Hamers, Francoise F ^d   Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik ^e   Slabe Erker, Renata ^e   Davidson, Thomas ^a,b  

^a Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^d Ancien Délégué Général de la Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^f NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CROATIA; CZECH REPUBLIC; DENMARK; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENGLAND; ESTONIA; EUROPEAN NETWORK FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; FINLAND; FRANCE; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; HUNGARY; IRELAND; ITALY; LATVIA; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; NORWAY; POLAND; PORTUGAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; SCOTLAND; SLOVAKIA; SLOVENIA; SPAIN; SWEDEN; SWITZERLAND; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84944711235     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. ® (version 2.0 PDF): EUnetHTA—European Network for Health Technology Assessment. 2013.
2. European Network for Health Technology Assessment [EUnetHTA]. EUnetHTA: about us. EUnetHTA. 2015. http://www.eunethta.eu/about-us. Accessed 4 Sept 2015.
3. Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
4. Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
5. Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S, Plsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
6. European Network for Health Technology Assessment [EUnetHTA]. Methods for health economic evaluations—a guideline based on current practices in Europe: EUnetHTA—European Network for Health Technology Assessment. 2015.
7. Bracco A, Krol M. Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: current status and comparisons. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13(5):579–95. doi:10.1586/14737167.2013.837766.
8. Mauskopf J, Walter J, Birt J, Bowman L, Copley-Merriman C, Drummond M. Differences among formulary submission guidelines: implications for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):261–70. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000274.
9. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4(3):225–50. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43040.x.
10. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR]. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR. 2013. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp. Accessed 22 May 2013.
11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.
12. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency [TLV]. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Stockholm: TLV; 2003.
13. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(5):361–7. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0032-y.
14. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–83.
15. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]. Allgemeine Methoden, Version 4.2 vom 22.04.2015. Cologne: IQWiG; 2015.
16. Bundesinstitut für Qualität im Gesundheitswesen [BIQG] und Gesundheit Österreich GmbH. Methodenhandbuch für HTA Version 1.2012. Vienna: BIQG; 2012.
17. Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. Der Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger verlautbart gemäß § 351 g Abs. 1 ASVG: Verfahrensordnung zur Herausgabe des Erstattungskodex nach § 351 g ASVG—VO-EKO, Verlautbarung Nr.: 47 Jahr: 2004. Austria: Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; 2004.
18. Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines on health economic evaluation, consensus paper. Vienna: Institute for Pharmaeconomic Research [IPF]; 2006.
19. Belgian Heath Care Knowledge Centre [KCE]. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. KCE Report 183C Brussels: KCE; 2012.
20. Croatian Guideline for Health Technology Assessment Process and Reporting (1st edition). Zagreb: Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment; 2011.
21. Státní ústav pro kontrolu léčiv [SUKL]. Postup pro hodnocení nákladové efektivity, SP-CAU-028—W. Czech Republic: SUKL; 2013.
22. Státní ústav pro kontrolu léčiv [SUKL]. F-CAU-028-01-Check-list minimálních požadavků na kvalitu a úplnost hodnocení nákladové efektivity (check-list for submitted pharmacoeconomic evaluation). Czech Republic: SUKL; 2013.
23. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Chapter 9: the economy. In: Kristensen F, Sigmund H, editors. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.
24. Sunhedsstyrelsen. Report on guidelines for health economic analyses of medicinal products. Copenhagen: Sunhedsstyrelsen; 1998.
25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme methods guide. London: NICE; 2011.
26. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. Diagnostics Assessment Programme 2011 manual. Manchester: NICE; 2011.
27. Experts from Health Authorities of the Baltic Countries. Baltic guideline for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals (pharmacoeconomic analysis). 2002.
28. Lääkkeiden hintalautakunta. Preparing a health economic evaluation to be attached to the application for reimbursement status and wholesale price for a medicinal product, Application instructions TTS 10.6.20132013.
29. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board. Guidelines for preparing a health economic evaluation, Annex to the Decree of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health on applications and price notifications made to the Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board (201/2009) Finland; 2011.
30. Sintonen H. Taloudellinen arviointi (economic evaluation). In: Mäkelä M, Kaila M, Lampe K, Teikari K (toim.). Menetelmien arviointi terveydenhuollossa. Helsinki: Duodecim; 2007.
31. Haute Autorité de Santé [HAS]. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. Saint-Denis La Plaine: Department of Economics and Public Health Assessment, HAS; 2012.
32. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs (version 1.0 dated 19/11/2009). Cologne: IQWiG; 2009.
33. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]. Working paper modelling version 1.0—19/11/2009. Cologne: IQWiG; 2009.
34. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]. Working paper cost estimation version 1.0—19/11/2009. Cologne: IQWiG; 2009.
35. Szende Á, Mogyorósy Z, Muszbek N, Nagy J, Pallos G, Dözsa C. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur J Health Econom. 2002;3(3):196–206. doi:10.1007/s10198-002-0109-6.
36. Az Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma szakmai irányelve az egészség-gazdaságtani elemzések készítéséhez. 2013. EüK. 3. szám EMMI közlemény 2. Hatályos: 2013.03.01.
37. Health Information and Quality Authority [HIQA]. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Cork: HIQA; 2014.
38. Italian Association of Health Care Economists. Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari [Italian guidelines for economic evaluation; available only in Italian]. Pharmacoeconomics—Italian Res Art. 2009;11(2).
39. Health Care Insurance Board [CVZ]. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research in the Netherlands. Diemen: CVZ; 2006.
40. Tan SS, Bouwmans CA, Rutten FF, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. Update of the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):152–8. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000062.
41. Health Care Insurance Board [CVZ]. Guidelines for outcomes research (to assess the cost-effectiveness of inpatient drugs) Diemen: CVZ; 2008.
42. Norwegian Medicines Agency [NOMA]. Guidelines on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses. Oslo: NOMA; 2012.
43. Helsedirektoratet. Økonomisk evaluering av helsetiltak—en veileder. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2012.
44. Agency for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for conducting health technology assessment (HTA). Version 2.1 (Part 4 & 5). Warsaw; April 2009.
45. Polish Minister of Health. Regulation of the Minister of Health of 2 April 2012 on the minimum requirements to be satisfied by the analyses accounted for in the applications for reimbursement and setting the official sales price and for increasing the official sales price of a drug, a special purpose dietary supplement, a medical device, which do not have a reimbursed counterpart in a given indication. Poland; 2012.
46. Alves da Silva E, Gouveia Pinto C, Sampaio C, Pereira JA, Drummond M, Trindade R. Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies Lisbon: National Authority of Medicines and Health Products [INFARMED]; 1998.
47. ISPOR Russian HTA Chapter, Russian State Medical University. Protocol on the procedure for clinical and economic evaluation of drugs which are submitted for inclusion into reimbursed drug lists. Moscow; 2010.
48. Russian Ministry of Health. Regulation of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation on the procedure of compiling draft essential drug list. Russia. 2011.
49. Scottish Medicines Consortium [SMC]. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF). Glasgow: SMC; 2013.
50. Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. The announcement concerning pharmaco-economic analysis of drugs (Vyhláška Ministerstva zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky o podrobnostiach farmako-ekonomického rozboru lieku č. 422/2011 Z. z.). Slovak Republic: Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic; 2011.
51. Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. Methodological tool for the implementation of economic analysis of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Guidelines to: the announcement no. 343/2008 and the announcement no. 210/2008 (in Slovak: Metodická pomôcka pre vykonávanie farmako-ekonomického rozboru lieku a medicínsko-ekonomického rozboru zdravotníckej pomôcky ku vyhláške Ministerstva zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky č. 343/2008 Z. z. o podrobnostiach farmako-ekonomickom rozbore lieku a vyhláške Ministerstva zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky č. 210/2008 Z. z., ktorou sa ustanovujú podrobnosti o medicínsko-ekonomickom rozbore zdravotníckej pomôcky). Slovak Republic: Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic; 2008.
52. Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia. Regulation on classifying drugs onto positive list for public financing. Slovenia; 2010.
53. Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F, Garcia-Altes A, Gisbert R, Mar J, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econom. 2010;11(5):513–20. doi:10.1007/s10198-010-0244-4.
54. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía. Guía para informes de evaluación de medicamentos. Seville: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía; 2013.
55. Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment [OSTEBA], Servicio de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco. Guía de Evaluación Económica en el Sector Sanitario. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Departamento de Sanidad. Dirección de Planificación y Evaluación Sanitaria; 1999.
56. Puig-Junoy J, Oliva-Moreno J, Trapero-Bertrán M, Abellán-Perpiñán M, Brosa-Riestra M, Servei Catalá de la Salut [CatSalut]. Guía y recomendaciones para la realización y presentación de evaluaciones económicas y análisis de impacto presupestario de medicamientos en el ámbito del CatSalut. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Salut, CatSalut; 2014.
57. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency [TLV]. Guide for companies when applying for subsidies and pricing for pharmaceutical products, version 2.0, decided 2/3/2012, Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Stockholm: TLV; 2011.
58. Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency [TLV]. Allmänna råd för ansökan om pris och subvention för förbrukningsartiklar, TLVAR 2011:1. Stockholm: TLV; 2011.
59. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services [SBU]. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården—en handbook (assessment of health care methods—a handbook). Stockholm: SBU; 2013.
60. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Handbuch betreffend die Spezialitätenliste (including appendices) published v1. September 1th, 2011 (effective version 1. March 1, 2013). Switzerland: Bundesamt für Gesundheit; 2013.
61. Eidgenössische Kommission für allgemeine Leistungen und Grundsatzfragen [ELGK]. Handbuch zur Antragstellung auf Kostenübernahme bei neuen oder umstrittenen Leistungen, Erläuterungen zum Antragsformular “Medizinische Leistungen”. Switzerland; 2009.
62. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Operationalisierung der Begriffe Wirksamkeit,: Zweckmässigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit Arbeitspapier, working paper, version 2.0. Switzerland; 2011.
63. Eidgenössische Kommission für allgemeine Leistungen und Grundsatzfragen [ELGK]. Antragsformular (application form); 2009.