Françoise F Hamers1, Salah Ghabri1, Catherine Le Gales2. 1. a Department of Economic and Public Health Evaluation , Haute Autorité de Santé (French National Authority for Health, HAS) , Saint-Denis La Plaine , France. 2. b Cermes3 , Inserm U988 , Villejuif , France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to review the selection and methods used for deriving health state utility (HSU) estimates included in the cost-utility analyses (CUA) submitted by manufacturers to the National Authority for Health (HAS) during the first 2 years after the introduction of the economic evaluation for price setting in France. METHODS: We reviewed all manufacturers' submissions that included a CUA and were assessed by HAS by the end of October 2015 (N = 34). We reviewed the identification, selection, and methods used to estimate HSU and compared them with those recommended by HAS. RESULTS: A literature review to identify HSU was reported in only 13 (38%) submissions. The instruments for describing HSU were a preference-based generic instrument in 20 (59%) submissions; vignettes in five (15%); a condition-specific instrument in three (9%); and a combination of instruments in six (18%). The valuation perspective was the general population in 26 (76%) submissions; in only nine (26%) submissions, the valuation set was derived from the French general population. CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous concerns in the selection, valuation and use of HSU, as well as a frequent lack of clarity in the methods used. Most submissions (79%) included HSU that did not meet HAS recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to review the selection and methods used for deriving health state utility (HSU) estimates included in the cost-utility analyses (CUA) submitted by manufacturers to the National Authority for Health (HAS) during the first 2 years after the introduction of the economic evaluation for price setting in France. METHODS: We reviewed all manufacturers' submissions that included a CUA and were assessed by HAS by the end of October 2015 (N = 34). We reviewed the identification, selection, and methods used to estimate HSU and compared them with those recommended by HAS. RESULTS: A literature review to identify HSU was reported in only 13 (38%) submissions. The instruments for describing HSU were a preference-based generic instrument in 20 (59%) submissions; vignettes in five (15%); a condition-specific instrument in three (9%); and a combination of instruments in six (18%). The valuation perspective was the general population in 26 (76%) submissions; in only nine (26%) submissions, the valuation set was derived from the French general population. CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous concerns in the selection, valuation and use of HSU, as well as a frequent lack of clarity in the methods used. Most submissions (79%) included HSU that did not meet HAS recommendations.