OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations (PEs) submitted with new drug applications for reimbursement and to investigate the role of PEs for coverage decisions in Korea. METHODS: Forty-seven PEs that were submitted by pharmaceutical companies for coverage decisions between June 2005 and December 2009 were included in this study. To assess their appropriateness with regard to the PE guidelines, we used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment services (HIRA) checklist consisting of 20 items based on the PE guidelines. We also evaluated the results for coverage decisions, as "recommended," "recommended with restricted use," or "not recommended," based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the range of uncertainty. RESULTS: On average, 14 of the 20 items on the HIRA checklist were fulfilled (70.9%, range 35.0%-100%). The compliance rate for the following items was above 70%: presentation of perspectives and evaluation methods, a sufficient time horizon, and appropriateness of comparators and health outcomes. The compliance rate for the following items was below 70%: omission of objectives for the study, inappropriate target population, unclear selection process for effectiveness and cost, inappropriate cost estimation, insufficient justification of generalizability, and description of study limitations. The range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-years of PEs from a societal perspective varied from dominant to 59K USD (n = 13): it consisted of dominant to 28K USD for "recommended" submissions (n = 6), 8K to 20K USD for "recommended with restricted use" submissions (n = 4), and 13K to 59K for "not recommended" ones (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that most PEs in this study have reached an adequate level for coverage decisions. Overall barriers associated with a lack of relevant evidence could account for the low compliance rate with specific items in the PE guidelines. PEs with good quality submitted for coverage decisions have played an important role for selecting cost-effective drugs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations (PEs) submitted with new drug applications for reimbursement and to investigate the role of PEs for coverage decisions in Korea. METHODS: Forty-seven PEs that were submitted by pharmaceutical companies for coverage decisions between June 2005 and December 2009 were included in this study. To assess their appropriateness with regard to the PE guidelines, we used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment services (HIRA) checklist consisting of 20 items based on the PE guidelines. We also evaluated the results for coverage decisions, as "recommended," "recommended with restricted use," or "not recommended," based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the range of uncertainty. RESULTS: On average, 14 of the 20 items on the HIRA checklist were fulfilled (70.9%, range 35.0%-100%). The compliance rate for the following items was above 70%: presentation of perspectives and evaluation methods, a sufficient time horizon, and appropriateness of comparators and health outcomes. The compliance rate for the following items was below 70%: omission of objectives for the study, inappropriate target population, unclear selection process for effectiveness and cost, inappropriate cost estimation, insufficient justification of generalizability, and description of study limitations. The range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-years of PEs from a societal perspective varied from dominant to 59K USD (n = 13): it consisted of dominant to 28K USD for "recommended" submissions (n = 6), 8K to 20K USD for "recommended with restricted use" submissions (n = 4), and 13K to 59K for "not recommended" ones (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that most PEs in this study have reached an adequate level for coverage decisions. Overall barriers associated with a lack of relevant evidence could account for the low compliance rate with specific items in the PE guidelines. PEs with good quality submitted for coverage decisions have played an important role for selecting cost-effective drugs.