Literature DB >> 27665497

A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK.

Sebastian Salas-Vega1, Annika Bertling1, Elias Mossialos2.   

Abstract

Drug listing recommendations from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often fail to coincide with one another. We conducted a comparative analysis of listing recommendations in Australia (PBAC), the Netherlands (CVZ), Sweden (TLV) and the UK (NICE) over time, examined interagency agreement, and explored how process-related factors-including time delay between HTA evaluations, therapeutic indication and orphan drug status, measure of health economic value, and comparator-impacted decision-making in drug coverage. Agreement was poor to moderate across HTA agency listing recommendations, yet it increased as the delay between HTA agency appraisals decreased, when orphan drugs were assessed, and when medicines deemed to provide low value (immunosuppressants, antineoplastics) were removed from the sample. International differences in drug listing recommendations seem to occur in part due to inconsistencies in how the supporting evidence informs assessment, but also to differences in how domestic priorities shape the value-based decision-making process.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Keywords:  Comparative study; Drug coverage; Health policy; Technology appraisal

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27665497     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.006

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


  6 in total

1.  Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions.

Authors:  T H Kleinhout-Vliek; A A De Bont; A Boer
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 2.908

2.  How to Appropriately Extrapolate Costs and Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Andrea Manca; Miqdad Asaria; Ronan Mahon; Shijie Ren; Stephen Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dominika Wranik; Min Hu
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea.

Authors:  Eun-Young Bae; Hui Jeong Kim; Hye-Jae Lee; Junho Jang; Seung Min Lee; Yunkyung Jung; Nari Yoon; Tae Kyung Kim; Kookhee Kim; Bong-Min Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe.

Authors:  Tineke Kleinhout-Vliek; Antoinette de Bont; Meindert Boysen; Matthias Perleth; Romke van der Veen; Jacqueline Zwaap; Bert Boer
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2020-09-01

6.  What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study.

Authors:  Euan Barlow; Alec Morton; Saudamini Dabak; Sven Engels; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Yot Teerawattananon; Kalipso Chalkidou
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2022-05-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.