Willingness to pay for QALY: perspectives and contexts in Japan

References

• Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:93–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–1103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S5–S9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S10–S15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikegami N, Yoo BK, Hashimoto H, et al. Japanese universal health coverage: evolution, achievements, and challenges. Lancet. 2011;378:1106–1115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takayama A, Narukawa M. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in Japan: for faster, more complete access to new drugs. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50:361–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health, L.a.W., Handbook of health and welfare statistics 2017. 2017;Contents.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health, L.a.W., Medical Economics Division. Health Insurance Bureau, Notification. 2014;212–217.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuda A, Igarashi A. Universal health coverage and cancer drugs - a cost-effectiveness perspective. Gan to Kagaku Ryoho. 2016;43:1311–1315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: the FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy. 2017;121:836–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Igarashi A. How do I think, what should I say about the Japanese HTA? 8th Annual Asia Pacific Conference of ISPOR. Educational symposium; 2018; Tokyo, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Kamae I. Update on HTA in Japan: critical appraisal on the methods. 8th Annual Asia Pacific Conference of ISPOR. Workshop 5; 2018; Tokyo, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. Development of an official guideline for the economic evaluation of drugs/medical devices in Japan. Value Health. 2017;20:372–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohkusa Y. Empirical research for the critical value of expenditure per QALY. J Health Care Soc. 2003;13:121–130.
   Google Scholar
• Ohkusa Y, Sugawara T. Research for willingness to pay for one QALY gain. J Health Care Soc. 2006;16:157–165.
   Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, et al. WTP for a QALY and health states: more money for severer health states? Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11:22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Saito S, Shimozuma K, et al. Societal preferences for interventions with the same efficiency: assessment and application to decision making. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:375–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nimdet K, Chaiyakunapruk N, Vichansavakul K, et al. A systematic review of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year: does it justify CE threshold? PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno K, et al. Systematic overview of cost-effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:485–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skoupa J, Annemans L, Hajek P. Health economic data requirements and availability in the European Union: results of a survey among 10 European countries. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:53–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Towse A, Pritchard C. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): is economic appraisal working? Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:95–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London, UK: NICE; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya A, Watson V. Re-thinking 'the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health'. Health Econ. 2017;26:e103–e107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12:545–551.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull BW. The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc Series B Methodol. 1976;38:290–295.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health, L.a.W., Comprehensive survey of living conditions 2017. 2017;Contents.
   Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:123–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson M, Nilsson FO, Arnberg K. Reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1229–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust. 2007;187:283–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandman L, Heintz E. Assessment vs. appraisal of ethical aspects of health technology assessment: can the distinction be upheld? GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc05.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, et al. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19:422–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyrd-Hansen D. Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end of life? A revisit. Health Econ. 2018;27:e71–e75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington M, Baker R, Brouwer W, et al. Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public. Health Econ. 2015;24:280–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto-Prades JL, Sanchez-Martinez FI, Corbacho B, et al. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Soc Sci Med. 2014;113:5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron D, Ubels J, Norstrom F. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2018;11:1447828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae YH, Mullins CD. Do value thresholds for oncology drugs differ from nononcology drugs? J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014;20:1086–1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller Y, Hollak CE, Biegstraaten M. The quality of economic evaluations of ultra-orphan drugs in Europe – a systematic review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden G, Towes A, Henshall C. Assessing value, budget impact and affordability to inform discussions on access and reimbursement: principles and practice, with special reference to high cost technologies. HTAi Asia Policy Forum Meeting. 2016; Nov 17–18; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WBF, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoecon. 2004;22:1097–1107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar