Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767256›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Appraising Drugs Based on Cost-effectiveness and Severity of Disease in Norwegian Drug Coverage Decisions.

Eirik Joakim Tranvåg, Øystein Ariansen Haaland, Bjarne Robberstad, Ole Frithjof Norheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eirik Joakim TranvågBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Øystein Ariansen HaalandBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Bjarne RobberstadResearch Group in Health Economics, Leadership, and Translational Ethics Research, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ole Frithjof NorheimBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Rising health care costs are a major health policy challenge globally. Norway has implemented a priority-setting system intended to balance cost-effectiveness and concerns for fair distribution, but little is known about this strategy and whether it works in practice. Objective: To present and evaluate a systematic drug appraisal method that uses the severity of disease to account for a fair distribution of health in cost-effectiveness analysis, forming the basis for price negotiations and coverage decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study uses confidential drug price information and publicly available data from health technology assessments and logistic and linear regression analyses to evaluate drug coverage decisions for the Norwegian specialized health care sector from 2014 to 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Drug coverage decisions by Norwegian authorities and incremental cost-effectiveness and severity of disease measured as absolute shortfall of quality adjusted life years. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 188 drugs were appraised, of which 113 were cancer drugs. The overall coverage rate was 73% (138 of 188). The number of annual appraisals increased during the observation period. Based on 83 chosen decisions, regression analysis showed that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) based on negotiated drug prices, adjusted for severity-differentiated cost-effectiveness thresholds, was the variable that best projected drug approvals (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86). An increase in the ICER by $10 000 was associated with a reduction in the odds for approval of 40% for drugs assessed from 2018 to 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study demonstrated how concerns for efficiency and fair distribution of health can be implemented systematically into drug appraisals and reimbursement decisions. New, expensive drugs are expected to escalate health care costs in the years to come, and it may be feasible to control costs by negotiating the prices of new drugs while appraising both their cost-effectiveness and how their health benefits are distributed.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrug CostsCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSeverity of Illness IndexAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID35767256
PMCPMC9244608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.