Priority setting for orphan drugs: An international comparison
Objectives To describe the process of priority setting for two orphan drugs - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - in Canada, Australia and Israel, in order to understand and improve the process based on stakeholder perspectives.Methods We conducted qualitative case studies of how three independent drug advisory committees made decisions relating to the funding of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Interviews were conducted with 22 informants, including committee members, patient groups and industry representatives.Results (1) Description: Orphan drugs reimbursement recommendations by expert panels were based on clinical evidence, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. (2) Evaluation: Committee members expressed an overall preference for the current drug review process used by their own committee, but were concerned with the fairness of the process particularly for orphan drugs. Other informants suggested the inclusion of other relevant values (e.g. lack of alternative treatments) in order to improve the priority setting process. Some patient groups suggested the use of an alternative funding mechanism for orphan drugs.Conclusions Priority setting for drugs is not solely a technical process (involving cost-effective analysis, evidence-based medicine, etc.). Understanding the process by which reimbursement decisions are made for orphan drugs may help improve the system for future orphan drugs.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shani, Segev & Siebzehner, Miriam Ines & Luxenburg, Osnat & Shemer, Joshua, 2000. "Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level -- the Israeli experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 169-185, December.
- Gallego, Gisselle & Taylor, Susan Joyce & Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth, 2007. "Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 58-66, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:100:y:2011:i:1:p:25-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)or ()
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.