Literature DB >> 10141252

A critical review of health-related economic evaluations in Australia: implications for health policy.

G Salkeld1, P Davey, G Arnolda.   

Abstract

In Australia, as in many other countries, economic evaluation is increasingly seen by health care policy makers as a useful aid to priority setting and resource allocation. In Australia, economic evaluation is now a requirement for new drugs to be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which provides a government subsidy on the price of listed drugs for purchasers. Yet, despite recognition of the importance of economic evaluation by policy makers, there is a paucity of published evaluations in Australia. We reviewed all of the 33 health-related economic evaluations conducted in Australia and subsequently published since 1978. This study assesses how well informed decision makers might be if they used the results and conclusions of published economic evaluations as an aid to resource allocation. The review highlights several issues: (i) it is difficult to interpret the conclusions or assess the generalisability of individual papers without information on the context of the original study; (ii) the choice of comparator(s) was often unexplained and most papers did not employ marginal analysis; (iii) in the absence of marginal analysis, the comparability of cost-effectiveness ratios in league tables must be questioned as well as the completeness (were all the relevant alternatives included?) of studies; and (iv) the quality of effectiveness evidence varies enormously, with some authors content to use the best available evidence (even if it is of poor quality). The development of standards for economic evaluation methods might ensure a more consistent and scientific approach to evaluative work, but they cannot guarantee it. A more concerted effort to disseminate the principles and methods of economic evaluation to policy makers and non-economist evaluators might be a more important precursor to improving the credibility and usefulness of economic evaluations in priority setting.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10141252     DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(94)00672-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  8 in total

1.  Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?

Authors:  Maria-Florencia Hutter; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Fernando Antonanzas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-08-24

Review 2.  The need for an iterative process for assessing economic outcomes associated with SSRIs.

Authors:  T L Skaer; D A Sclar; L M Robison; R S Galin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Economic evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach.

Authors:  P Davey; D Grainger; J MacMillan; N Rajan; M Aristides; M Dobson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review.

Authors:  Susanne Mayer; Noemi Kiss; Agata Łaszewska; Judit Simon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Preventive health resource allocation decision-making processes and the use of economic evidence in an Australian state government-A mixed methods study.

Authors:  Jaithri Ananthapavan; Gary Sacks; Marj Moodie; Phuong Nguyen; Rob Carter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Trine S Bergmo
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2009-10-24

7.  Impact assessment of Iran's health technology assessment programme.

Authors:  Bahareh Yazdizadeh; Farideh Mohtasham; Ashraf Velayati
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-02-22

Review 8.  The impacts of medication shortages on patient outcomes: A scoping review.

Authors:  Jonathan Minh Phuong; Jonathan Penm; Betty Chaar; Lachlan Daniel Oldfield; Rebekah Moles
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.