198
Views
19
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: current status and comparisons

&
Pages 579-595 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Cranovsky R, Schilling J, Faisst K et al. Health technology assessment in Switzerland. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(2), 576–590 (2000).
  • Tilson L, O'Leary A, Usher C, Barry M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland: a review of the process. Pharmacoeconomics 28(4), 307–22 (2010).
  • Cleemput I, van WP. History of health technology assessment in Belgium. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25 (Suppl. 1), 82–87 (2009).
  • van Oostenbruggen MF, Jansen RB, Mur K, Kooijman H. Penny and pound wise: pharmacoeconomics from a governmental perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 23(3), 219–226 (2005).
  • Rochaix L, Xerri B. National Authority for Health: France. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 58, 1–9 (2009).
  • Nuijten MJ, Szende A, Kosa J et al. Health care reform in six Central European countries. A focus on health economic requirements in the drug pricing and reimbursement processes. Eur. J. Health Econ. 4(4), 286–291 (2003).
  • Nizankowski R, Wilk N. From idealistic rookies to a regional leader: the history of health technology assessment in Poland. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25 (Suppl 1), 156–162 (2009).
  • Nasser M, Sawicki P. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 57, 1–12 (2009).
  • Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines–similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4(3), 225–250 (2001).
  • Jacobs P, Ohinmaa A, Brady B. Providing systematic guidance in pharmacoeconomic guidelines for analysing costs. Pharmacoeconomics 23(2), 143–153 (2005).
  • Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJ, Evers SM. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health 13(5), 519–527 (2010).
  • Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF. Analysis sans frontieres: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions? Pharmacoeconomics 24(11), 1087–1099 (2006).
  • Drummond MF. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. The ways forward. Pharmacoeconomics 6(6), 493–497 (1994).
  • Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(5), 513–520 (2010).
  • Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines zur gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation Konsenspapier [Guidelines for health-economic evaluations in Austria]. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 156(23–24), 628–632 (2006).
  • Manual for the standardization of clinical and economic evaluation. Berne, Switzerland: BSV (Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office); 2000.
  • Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Drug Inf. J. 35, 189–201 (2001).
  • Cleemput I, van WP, Huybrechts M, Vrijens F. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health 12(4), 441–449 (2009).
  • Szende A, Mogyorosy Z, Muszbek N et al. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3(3), 196–206 (2002).
  • Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am. J. Manag. Care 13(4),211–217 (2007).
  • van Exel J, Bobinac A, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W. The invisible hands made visible: recognizing the value of informal care in healthcare decision-making. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 8(6), 557–561 (2008).
  • Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. J. Health Econ. 29(4), 549–556 (2010).
  • Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Health effects in significant others: separating family and care-giving effects. Med. Decis. Making 31(2), 292–298 (2011).
  • Dixon S, Walker M, Salek S. Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 24(1), 43–53 (2006).
  • Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJ, Looren de JS et al. A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: measuring the impact of informal care giving. Qual. Life Res. 20(6), 875–887 (2011).
  • Brouwer W, van Exel N, Baltussen R, Rutten F. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar – or is it? Value Health 9(5), 341–347 (2006)
  • Roy S, Madhavan SS. Making a case for employing a societal perspective in the evaluation of Medicaid prescription drug interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 26(4), 281–296 (2008).
  • Jonsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(4), 357–359 (2009).
  • van der Zee J, Kroneman MW. Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7, 94 (2007).
  • Johannesson M. A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy 33(1), 59–66 (1995).
  • Drummond M. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 2(1),1–4 (1992).
  • Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ. 24(4), 751–773 (2005).
  • Keech M. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 19 (Suppl 2), 27–31 (2001).
  • Anis AH, Gagnon Y. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 18(1), 55–62 (2000).
  • Atthobari J, Bos JM, Boersma C et al. Adherence of pharmacoeconomic studies to national guidelines in the Netherlands. Pharm. World Sci. 27(5), 364–370 (2005).
  • Longworth L, Sculpher MJ, Bojke L, Tosh JC. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(2), 180–187 (2011).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.