Incorporation of multi-criteria decision analysis into health technology assessment: Experiences and challenges from Bulgaria

Health Economics and Policy Challenges in Global Emerging Markets

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 41-57

  Iskrov, Georgi ^a   Kuncheva, Ralitsa ^a   Stefanov, Rumen ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLOVDIV   (Bulgaria)

^b Institute of Rare Diseases   (Bulgaria)

Author keywords

Decision making; Health economics; Health technology assessment; Multi criteria decision analysis; Value appraisal; Value assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015346089     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Eichler, H. G., Kong, S. X., Gerth, W. C., Mavros, P., & Jönsson, B., (2004). Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 7, 518-528.
2. Schnipper, L. E., Davidson, N. E., Wollins, D. S., Tyne, C., Blayney, D. W., Blum, D., & Schilsky, R. L. (2015). American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. Journal of Clinical Oncology, JCO-2015.
3. Rocchi, A., Chabot, I., & Glennie, J., (2015). Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res, 7, 287-298.
4. McCabe, C., Claxton, K., & Culyer, A. J., (2008). The NICE costeffectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomic, 26, 733-744.
5. Gafni, A., & Birch, S., (2006). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc. Sci. Med, 62, 2091-2100.
6. Weinstein, M. C., (1991). The cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs. Am. J. Public Health, 81, 414-415.
7. Tromp, N., & Baltussen, R., (2012). Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv. Res, 12, 454.
8. Rocchi, A., Menon, D., Verma, S., & Miller, E., (2008). The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decisionmaking: to lambda and beyond. Value Health, 11, 771-783.
9. Leider, J. P., Resnick, B., Kass, N., Sellers, K., Young, J., Bernet, P., & Jarris, P., (2014). Budget- and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of austerity: a mixed-methods study. Am. J. Public Health, 104, 1092-1099.
10. Defechereux, T., Paolucci, F., Mirelman, A., Youngkong, S., Botten, G., Hagen, T. P., & Niessen, L. W., (2012). Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res, 12, 39.
11. Thokala, P., & Duenas, A., (2012). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health, 15, 1172-1181.
12. Sussex, J., Rollet, P., Garau, M., Schmitt, C., Kent, A., & Hutchings, A., (2013). A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health, 16, 1163-1169.
13. Whitty, J. A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., & Ratcliffe, J., (2014). A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient, 7, 365-86.
14. Paolucci, F., Mentzakis, E., Defechereux, T., & Niessen, L. W. (2014). Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China-a stated preference analysis. Health policy and planning, 1, 8.
15. Rosenberg-Yunger, Z. R., Daar, A. S., Thorsteinsdóttir, H., & Martin, D. K., (2011). Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison. Health Policy, 100, 25-34.
16. Iskrov, G., & Stefanov, R., (2014). Post-marketing Access to Orphan Drugs: A Critical Analysis of Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-making Considerations. Orphan Drugs: Research and Reviews, 4, 1-9.
17. Menon, D., Stafinski, T., Dunn, A., & Short, H., (2015). Involving patients in reducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultraorphan drugs: a rare opportunity? Patient, 8, 29-39.
18. Endrei, D., Molics, B., & Agoston, I., (2014). Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health, 17, 487-489.
19. Iskrov, G., Raycheva, R., & Stefanov, R., (2013). Insight into reimbursement decision-making criteria in Bulgaria: implications for orphan drugs. Folia Med. (Plovdiv), 55, 80-86.
20. Dupont, A. G., & Van Wilder, P. B., (2011). Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol, 71, 488-496.
21. Lorenc, T., Tyner, E. F., Petticrew, M., Duffy, S., Martineau, F. P., Phillips, G., & Lock, K., (2014). Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. Eur. J. Public Health, 24, 1041-1047.
22. Mirelman, A., Mentzakis, E., Kinter, E., Paolucci, F., Fordham, R., Ozawa, S., Ferraz, M., Baltussen, R., & Niessen, L. W., (2012). Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health, 15, 534-9.
23. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, (2013). Interim Process and Methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme.
24. Mentzakis, E., Paolucci, F., & Rubicko, G., (2014). Priority setting in the Austrian healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment and implications for mental health. J. Ment. Health Policy Econ, 17, 61-73.
25. Lopert, R., Ruiz, F., & Chalkidou, K., (2013). Applying rapid ‘de-facto’ HTA in resource-limited settings: experience from Romania. Health Policy, 112, 202-208.
26. Kolasa, K., (2013). Objectivity of reimbursement decisions - does it always has to pay off? Przegl. Epidemiol, 67, 503-507.
27. Council of Ministers. (2014). Ordinance on the terms, rules and procedure for regulation and registration of prices for medicinal products. Retrieved from http://www.ncpr.bg/images/News/Naredba_ tseni_NCPR_eng.pdf.
28. Iskrov, G., & Stefanov, R., (2015). Criteria for drug reimbursement decision-making: an emerging public health challenge in Bulgaria. Balkan Med. J. [Accepted for publication].