Preview

FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology

Advanced search

International experience in determining the cost-effectiveness thresholds

https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.4.073-080

Full Text:

Abstract

The article reviews international methodological guidelines, regulatory documents and existing approaches to the determination of the costeffectiveness threshold (CeT), also known as the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP), the threshold value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICeR), in europe (england and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark, the netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, norway, Poland), America (the USA, Canada, Brazil), Asia (Japan, South korea, Taiwan, Thailand), in Australia and new Zealand. The CeT is commonly used to rationalize decision-making in health cost reimbursement. The present review demonstrates that just a few countries (englandandWales,Thailand,Poland,USA) have introduced the explicit value of CeT into their decision making. Some countries (Australia,Canada,new Zealand, thenetherlands,Sweden, andBrazil) use CeT in an implicit manner implying that no specific CeT value is defined by law. In other countries (Finland,Sweden,norway,France,Germany,Denmark,Japan,South korea,Taiwan), the role of the threshold in health reimbursement remains uncertain despite the presence of HTA systems. The CeT is expressed as additional cost per unit of incremental health benefit, which is represented by quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in most counties. However,PolandandBrazilallow using life years gained (LYG) as a measure of additional benefit neglecting the quality of life. In thenetherlandsandengland, different CeT values are applied to the health technology under assessment depending on the severity or rareness of the disease and some other factors.

About the Authors

T. P. Bezdenezhnykh
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Tatiana P. Bezdenezhnykh – Leading Specialist;

Tel.: +7 (495) 783-19-05;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028



N. Z. Musina
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Research Financial Institution of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, Federal State Budget Institution; I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Nuriya Z. Musina – PhD, Head of the Department for the Development and Communications, Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation; Lecturer at the Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Sechenov Moscow Medical University;

Tel.: +7(495)6900480;

Researcher ID: C-8075-2018;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028;

3-2 Nastasyinsky pereulok, Moscow 127006;

8-2 Trubetskaya Str., Moscow 119048



V. K. Fedyaeva
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Research Financial Institution of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, Federal State Budget Institution
Russian Federation

Vlada K. Fedyaeva – Chief Specialist, Department of Methodological Support of Comprehensive HTA, Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation; Laboratory Assistant at the Healthcare Finance Center, Research Financial Institute, Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;

Tel.: +7(499)9569528;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028;

3-2 Nastasyinsky pereulok, Moscow 127006



T. S. Tepcova
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Tatiana S. Teptsova – PhD Student at the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy with the Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Leading Specialist, Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation; Graduate Student, Educational Department of the Institute of Pharmacy, Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation;

Tel.: +7 (495) 783-19-05;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028;

8-2 Trubetskaya Str., Moscow 119048



V. A. Lemeshko
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Valeriya A. Lemeshko – PhD Student at the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy with the Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Leading Specialist, Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation;

Tel.: +7 (495) 783-19-05;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028;

8-2 Trubetskaya Str., Moscow 119048



V. V. Omelyanovsky
Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Research Financial Institution of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, Federal State Budget Institution
Russian Federation

Vitaliy V. Omelyanovskiy – MD, Professor, Head of the Healthcare Finance Center at the Research Financial Institute, Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;

Tel.: +7(499) 9569528;

Researcher ID: P-6911-2018; Scopus Author ID: 6507287753;

10-5 Khokhlovskii pereulok, Moscow 109028;

3-2 Nastasyinsky pereulok, Moscow 127006



References

1. The official website of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Improvement (in Russian) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/about. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. 2014 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/pmg19/resources/guide-to-theprocesses-of-technology-appraisal-pdf-72286663351237. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

3. Towse A, Pritchard C. Does NICE have a threshold? An external view. In: Towse A., Pritchard C., Devlin N., editors. Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds. Economic and Ethical Issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002.

4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-oftechnology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/documents/appraising-life-extending-endof-life-treatments-paper2 Accessed: 26.10.2018.

6. Devlin N., Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health econ. 2004; 13 (5): 437-52.

7. Claxton K., Sculpher M., Palmer S., Culyer A. J. Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? Health econ. 2015; 24 (1): 1-7.

8. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. KCE reports 100 C. 2008; 86 pp.

9. Teerawattananon Y., Tritasavit N., Suchonwanich N., Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014; 108 (7): 397-404.

10. Assessing a societal value for a ceiling threshold in Thailand. HITAP, 2013. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.hitap.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/preliminary_results_wtp-qaly.pdf. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

11. Thokala P., Ochalek J., Leech A. A., Tong T. Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: the Past, the Present and the Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Feb 9.

12. Jahnz-Różyk K. et al. Drug policy in Poland. Value in health regional issues. 2017; 13: 23-26.

13. Grosse S. D. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold.expertreviewofpharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2008; 8 (2): 165-178.

14. Anderson J. L., Heidenreich P. A., Barnett P. G. et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014; 129 (22): 2329-2345.

15. Yeung K. et al. Impact of a value-based formulary in three chronic disease cohorts. American journal of managed care. 2017; 23 (3): 46-53.

16. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Value Assessment Framework. Boston, MA, USA. [Elektronnyy resurs]. URL: https://icer-review.org/methodology/icers-methods/icer-value-assessmentframework/ . Accessed: 26.10.2018.

17. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Evidence driven. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.cadth.ca/.Accessed: 26.10.2018.

18. Rocchi A., Menon D., Verma S., Miller E. The Role of Economic Evidence in Canadian Oncology Reimbursement Decision making: To Lambda and Beyond. Value Health. 2007. CMAJ. 1992 Feb 15; 146 (4): 473-481.

19. Integlia D., Mazzoni E. Health Technology Assessment in the European Union. State of art and future scenarios [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/7787/7787e169a7f0afc63221153a6636c63f.pdf. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

20. Zwaap J., Knies S., van der Meijden C. et al. Cost-effectiveness in practice. National Health Care Institute, 26 June 2015. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/binaries/zinleng/documents/reports/2015/06/16/cost-effectiveness-in-practice/Cost-effectiveness+in+practice.pdf. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

21. Bobinac A., Van Exel N. J., Rutten F. F., Brouwer W. B. et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: the individual perspective. Value Health. 2010 Dec; 13 (8): 1046-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00781.x. Epub 2010 Sep 3.

22. Obradovic M. Searching for the social value of a QALY in the Netherlands: The Willingness to Pay for a QALY [Electronic resource]. URL: https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/15658/Obradovic-M-295113.pdf. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

23. Boersma C., Broere A., Postma M. J. Quantification of the Potential Impact of Cost‐effectiveness Thresholds on Dutch Drug Expenditures Using Retrospective Analysis. Value in Health. 2010; 13 (6): 853-856.

24. Official website of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-health-welfare-and-sport. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

25. Paris V., Belloni A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing. Country Profile: Australia. OECD. 2014 Nov (Working Paper No. 63).

26. Mauskopf J. et al. Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2013; 29 (1): 92-100.

27. Henry D. A., Hill S. R., Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA. 2005; 294 (20): 2630-2.

28. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. KCE reports 100 C. 2008; s. 47.

29. Metcalfe S. et al. PHARMAC has no cost-effectiveness threshold. The new Zealand Medical Journal (Online). 2012; 125 (1350): 99-101.

30. Metcalfe S., Grocott R. Comments on “Simoens S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009; 6: 2950-2966”. New Zealand in fact has no costeffectiveness threshold. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2010; 7 (4): 1831-1834.

31. The official website of the National Committee for the Implementation of Health Technology in Brazil (in Russian) [Electronic resource]. URL: http://conitec.gov.br/en/about-conitec. Accessed: 26.10.2018.

32. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia, Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Ministério da Saúde. Diretrizes metodológicas: diretriz de avaliação econômica. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2014.

33. Zimmermann I. R., Oliveira E. F., Vidal A. T. A qualidade das evidências e as recomendações sobre a incorporação de medicamentos no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma análise retrospectiva. Revista Eletrônica Gestão & Saúde. 2015; 6: 3043-65.

34. Yuba T. Y., Novaes H. M., De Soárez P. C. Use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (Icer) in recommending technologies incorporation in the Brazilian Public Health System (Sus), 2012-2015. Value Health. 2015; 18: A523.


For citation:


Bezdenezhnykh T.P., Musina N.Z., Fedyaeva V.K., Tepcova T.S., Lemeshko V.A., Omelyanovsky V.V. International experience in determining the cost-effectiveness thresholds. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2018;11(4):73-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.4.073-080

Views: 183


ISSN 2070-4909 (Print)
ISSN 2070-4933 (Online)