ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2004
Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Pooled it
- Pharmacoeconomics and its implication on priority-setting for essential medicines in Tanzania: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- The use (or rather the non-use) of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions - are we underestimating the barriers to using health economics in real world priority setting decisions?: Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora's box?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
- The role of evidence in the decision-making process of selecting essential medicines in developing countries: the case of Tanzania.PloS one · 2014Article
- Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
- Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- The role of funding and policies on innovation in cancer drug development.Ecancermedicalscience · 2010Article
- The role of economic evaluation in the decision-making process of family physicians: design and methods of a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals.PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorities in a number of countries rely increasingly on cost-effectiveness analysis to determine reimbursement status or clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals. This study compared the use of health economic evidence across five reimbursement committees (Australia, Ontario and British Columbia in Canada, Finland, and France) and one clinical guidance committee (England and Wales). Health economic evidence was found to support decision making, although cost-effectiveness is less important in some identifiable situations. Since the relative importance of cost-effectiveness varies, it will be difficult to implement a single explicit threshold. Further research may make patterns of decision making, distributional concerns, and the importance of different criteria more transparent, which would help to narrow the gap between the theory and practice of health economic evaluations. While the use of health economic evidence and the outcome of decision making are similar across committees, there is presently only limited knowledge to what extent prescribing patterns are influenced by decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15452762What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.