IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v112y2013i3p273-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The public health benefit of medicines: How it has been assessed in France? The principles and results of five years’ experience

Author

Listed:
  • Maison, Patrick
  • Zanetti, Laura
  • Solesse, Anne
  • Bouvenot, Gilles
  • Massol, Jacques

Abstract

Health technology assessment seeks to inform health policy- and decision-makers by promoting use of current best evidence and by addressing country specific factors, such as local context and values. In France, public health benefit (PHB) is one of the criteria used to inform decisions on the reimbursement of medicines. This article describes the methodological framework and the results after five years of assessment of PHB, by the French National Authority for Health. The semi-quantitative method used includes three dimensions that are: (1) the ability of a drug to improve the population's health status, (2) the drug's adequacy to cover public health needs, and; (3) the impact of the drug on the healthcare system. From 2005 to 2010, the PHB of 530 drugs was estimated, and 72% were assessed as having no PHB. The PHB was “low” for 88% of drugs expected to have a PHB, “medium” for 10%, and was considered to be “high” in only one case. The results of this experience show that it is feasible to assess the public health impact of drugs. But the high level of uncertainties at the time of a drug's first appraisal limits the assessment, which obviously has to be completed by reappraisal with post-marketing studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Maison, Patrick & Zanetti, Laura & Solesse, Anne & Bouvenot, Gilles & Massol, Jacques, 2013. "The public health benefit of medicines: How it has been assessed in France? The principles and results of five years’ experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 273-284.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:112:y:2013:i:3:p:273-284
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001048
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martine Bellanger & Veneta Cherilova & Valérie Paris, 2005. "The “Health Benefit Basket” in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 24-29, November.
    2. Peter J. Neumann & Allison B. Rosen & Dan Greenberg & Natalia V. Olchanski & Richa Pande & Richard H. Chapman & Patricia W. Stone & Silvia Ondategui-Parra & John Nadai & Joanna E. Siegel & Milton C. W, 2005. "Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 429-436, July.
    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. Viviane Cássia Pereira & Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto & Francisco Assis da Rocha Neves, 2019. "Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: Analysis of the current status," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. C. M. Dintsios & F. Worm & J. Ruof & M. Herpers, 2019. "Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Yot Teerawattananon & Steve Russell & Miranda Mugford, 2007. "A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Literature in Thailand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 467-479, June.

    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:eee:hepoli:v:112:y:2013:i:3:p:273-284. 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.