Literature DB >> 23317646

Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives.

Michael Drummond1, Rosanna Tarricone, Aleksandra Torbica.   

Abstract

Providing universal access to innovative, high-cost technologies leads to tensions in today's health care systems. The tension becomes particularly evident in the context of scarce resources, where the risk of taking contentious coverage decisions increases rapidly. To ensure economic sustainability, the payers of health care think that the benefits from the use of the new technologies need to be commensurate with the costs. Therefore, many jurisdictions have programs of health technology assessment, which often results in restrictions of access to care, either through complete refusal to reimburse the technology or its restriction of use to only a subset of the eligible patient population. However, manufacturers feel that they should be adequately rewarded for their innovations and require sufficient funds to invest in further research. Finally, patients perceive these technologies to have added benefits, and so they are concerned when they are denied access. If sustainable access to health care is to be maintained in the future, approaches are needed to reconcile these different perspectives. This article explores the approaches, in both methods and policy, to help bring about this reconciliation. These include rethinking the notion of social value (on the part of payers), aligning manufacturers' research more closely with societal objectives, and increasing patient participation in health technology assessment.
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23317646     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  17 in total

Review 1.  Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation.

Authors:  Kim Pauwels; Isabelle Huys; Minne Casteels; Katelijne De Nys; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.493

Review 2.  Essential medicines for universal health coverage.

Authors:  Veronika J Wirtz; Hans V Hogerzeil; Andrew L Gray; Maryam Bigdeli; Cornelis P de Joncheere; Margaret A Ewen; Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt; Sun Jing; Vera L Luiza; Regina M Mbindyo; Helene Möller; Corrina Moucheraud; Bernard Pécoul; Lembit Rägo; Arash Rashidian; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Peter N Stephens; Yot Teerawattananon; Ellen F M 't Hoen; Anita K Wagner; Prashant Yadav; Michael R Reich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.

Authors:  Bettina M Zimmermann; Johanna Eichinger; Matthias R Baumgartner
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.123

4.  Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

Authors:  Angela Rocchi; Isabelle Chabot; Judith Glennie
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-06-03

5.  Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs.

Authors:  C Schey; P F M Krabbe; M J Postma; M P Connolly
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 4.123

6.  Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review.

Authors:  Sarah Berglas; Lauren Jutai; Gail MacKean; Laura Weeks
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2016-06-07

Review 7.  Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis.

Authors:  Steven Simoens; Ira Jacobs; Robert Popovian; Leah Isakov; Lesley G Shane
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Industry Perspectives on Market Access of Innovative Drugs: The Relevance for Oncology Drugs.

Authors:  Kim Pauwels; Isabelle Huys; Minne Casteels; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 9.  Characteristics of drugs for ultra-rare diseases versus drugs for other rare diseases in HTA submissions made to the CADTH CDR.

Authors:  Trevor Richter; Ghayath Janoudi; William Amegatse; Sandra Nester-Parr
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.123

10.  Identification of publicly available data sources to inform the conduct of Health Technology Assessment in India.

Authors:  Laura Downey; Neethi Rao; Lorna Guinness; Miqdad Asaria; Shankar Prinja; Anju Sinha; Rajni Kant; Arvind Pandey; Francoise Cluzeau; Kalipso Chalkidou
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-02-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.