Development of Fourth Hurdle Policies Around the World

Evaluating Pharmaceuticals for Health Policy and Reimbursement

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 67-87

  Taylor, Rod S ^a   Drummond, Mike F ^b   Salkeld, Glen ^c   Sullivan, Sean D ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

European countries; Fourth hurdle policies; Health care system; National institute for clinical excellence; Pharmaceutical industry

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954224332     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470994719.ch5     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: AGPS, 1992.
2. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada, 2nd ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997.
3. Bloor K, Maynard A, Freemantle N. Lessons from international experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure III: regulating the industry. BMJ 1996;313:33-5.
4. Kanavos P, Trueman P, Bosilevac A. Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, The Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1179-92.
5. Ess SM, Scvhneesweiss S, Szucs TD. European healthcare policies for controlling drug expenditure. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:89-103.
6. Mason J, Freemantle N, Young P. The effect of the distribution of effectiveness health care bulletins on prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in primary care. Health Trends 1998;30:120-2.
7. NICE. Guidance on the use of taxanes for ovarian cancer. Technology appraisal guidance no. 3. London: NICE, 2000.
8. NICE. Guidance of the use of taxanes for breast cancer. Technology appraisal guidance no. 6. London: NICE, 2000.
9. NICE. Guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Technology appraisal guidance no. 36. London: NICE, 2002.
10. Haffner ME, Whitley J, Moses M. Two decades of orphan product development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002;1:821-5.
11. Park SJ, Shim WH, Ho DS, et al. A paclitaxel-eluting stent for the prevention of coronary restenosis. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1537-45.
12. NICE. Guidance on the use of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza. Technology appraisal guidance no. 15. London: NICE, 2002.
13. Hutton J, Maynard A. A NICE challenge for health economics. Health Econ 2000;9:89-93.
14. Benjamin I, Poston G, Sherlock D. Is the NICE process flawed? Lancet 2002;359:2120.
15. McKee M, Maclehose L, Mossialos E. After NICE: where now for health policy in the European Union? J R Soc Med 2003;96:1-2.
16. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001;4: 225-50.
17. Gulácsi L, Boncz I, Drummond MF. Issues for countries considering introducing the "fourth hurdle": the case of Hungary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004 (in press).
18. Gouveia Pinto C, Teixeira I. Pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in Portugal. Eur J Health Econ 2002;3:267-70.
19. Mather DB, Sullivan SD, Augenstein D, et al. Incorporating clinical outcomes and economic consequences into drug formulary decisions: a practical approach. Am J Manag Care 1999;5:277-85.
20. Sullivan SD, Lyles A, Luce B, Gricar J. AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in U.S. health plans and pharmacy benefits management organizations. J Manag Care Pharm 2001;7:272-82.
21. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP format for formulary submissions; version 2.0 (October 2002). http://www.fmcpnet.org/data/resource/formatv20.pdf (accessed 22 August 2003).
22. Jstreetdata Fast Alert Study. Attitudes towards adoption of the AMCP formulary guidelines. Washington, DC: Jstreetdata.com; 2 November 2001.
23. Robinson AM. AMCP's format for formulary submissions: an evolving standard. Results of two recent surveys. Presentation at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy; Minneapolis, MN; 9-12 April 2003.
24. Oliver A. Health economic evaluation in Japan: a case study of one aspect of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:197-204.
25. de Joncheere K, Paul T. Providing affordable medicines in transitional countries. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002;15:127-35.
26. Freemantle N, Behamane D, de Joncheere K. Pricing and reimbursement in the Baltic States. Lancet 2001;358:260.
27. Laing R, Waring B, Gray A, et al. 25 years of the WHO essential medicines list: progress and challenges. Lancet 2003;361:1723-9.
28. Mitchell AS. Measures relating to use of drug subsidy lists and to regulation. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002;15:77-9.
29. Guillen AM, Cabiedes L. Reforming pharamaceutical policies in the European Union: a "penguin effect"? Int J Health Serv 2003;33:1-28.
30. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, et al. Evaluation of the conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999;282:1453-7.
31. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.
32. Barbui C, Percudani M, Hotopf M. Economic evaluation of antidepressive agents: a systematic critique of experimental and observational studies. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2003;2:145-54.
33. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses. A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000;283:2116-21.
34. Anis AH, Rahman T, Schechter MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:119-26.
35. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of "willingness to pay" in health and health care. Health Econ 2001;10:201-8.
36. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness and the consistency of decision-making. Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:1103-9.
37. Raftery J. NICE faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:1300-3.
38. McDaid D, Mossialos E, Mrazek MJ. Methods for evaluating and monitoring and evaluating processes and outcomes. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002;15:67-76.
39. Productivity Commission. International pharmaceutical price differences. Canberra: AusInfo. Research report, 2001.
40. Bureau of Industry Economics. The pharmaceutical industry: impediments and opportunities, Bureau of Industry Economics Program Evaluation Report 11. Canberra: Bureau of Industry Economics, 1991.
41. Salkeld G, Mitchell A, Hill S. Pharmaceuticals. In: Mooney G, Scotton R, eds. Economics and Australian health policy. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1999. pp. 115-36.
42. Drummond MF. Will there ever be a European drug pricing and reimbursement agency? Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:67-9.
43. Drummond M. Should commercial-in-confidence data be used by decision makers when making assessments of cost effectiveness? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002;1:53-4.
44. Sudlow CIM, Counsell CE. Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis. BMJ 2003;326:388-92.
45. Taylor RS, Hutton J, Culyer AJ. Developing the revised NICE appraisal technical guidance to manufacturers and sponsors: opportunity or threat? Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:1031-8.