Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 13, 2013 - Issue 5
Submit an article Journal homepage
198
Views
19
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

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

Andrea Bracco AMGEN Europe GmbH, Dammstrasse 23, Zug, SwitzerlandCorrespondence[email protected]
&
Marieke KrolDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
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:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

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:

Request Academic Permissions

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.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.