IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i3p325-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Accuracy and Comparability of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies for Reimbursement Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Hossein Haji Ali Afzali
  • Jonathan Karnon
  • Tracy Merlin

Abstract

Increasingly, decision analytic models are used within economic evaluations of health technologies (e.g., pharmaceuticals) submitted to national reimbursement bodies in countries like Australia and UK, where such models play a fundamental role in informing public funding decisions. Concerns regarding the accuracy of model outputs and hence the credibility of national reimbursement decisions are frequently raised. We propose a framework for developing reference models for specific diseases to inform economic evaluations of health technologies and their appraisal. The structure of a reference model reflects the natural history of the condition under study and defines the clinical events to be represented, the relationships between the events, and the effect of patient characteristics on the probability and timing of events. We contend that the use of reference models will improve the accuracy and comparability of public funding decisions. This can lead to the more efficient allocation of public funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Tracy Merlin, 2013. "Improving the Accuracy and Comparability of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies for Reimbursement Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 325-332, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:3:p:325-332
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12458160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12458160
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12458160?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    2. Lois G. Kim & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 43-55, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Olga Theou & Justin Beilby & Matteo Cesari & Renuka Visvanathan, 2019. "Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    2. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & John S. F. Wright & Anthony J. G. Barron & Sara M. B. Shah & Corinna Klingler, 2017. "Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 69-75, March.
    3. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    4. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    5. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    6. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    7. Adrian Vickers, 2019. "An Evaluation of Survival Curve Extrapolation Techniques Using Long-Term Observational Cancer Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 926-938, November.
    8. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    9. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    10. Jean Yong & Jaclyn Beca & Jeffrey Hoch, 2013. "The Evaluation and Use of Economic Evidence to Inform Cancer Drug Reimbursement Decisions in Canada," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, March.
    11. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Bayoumi, Ahmed M., 2014. "Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 255-263.
    12. Ulla K. Griffiths & Benedict Anigbogu & Kiran Nanchahal, 2012. "Economic evaluations of adult weight management interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 145-162, May.
    13. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    14. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Daar, Abdallah S. & Singer, Peter A. & Martin, Douglas K., 2008. "Healthcare sustainability and the challenges of innovation to biopharmaceuticals in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 359-368, September.
    15. Katharina E. Fischer & Tom Stargardt, 2014. "Early Benefit Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Germany," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1030-1047, November.
    16. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    17. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    18. Ulla Griffiths & Benedict Anigbogu & Kiran Nanchahal, 2012. "Economic evaluations of adult weight management interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 145-162, May.
    19. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Chris Skedgel & Dominika Wranik & Min Hu, 2018. "The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian On," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 467-475, April.
    21. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:3:p:325-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.