IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea


  • Bae, Green
  • Bae, Eun Young
  • Bae, SeungJin


To investigate whether the value of the same drug is evaluated differently across jurisdictions, publicly available reimbursement recommendation data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA, Korea) from January 2007 until July 2012 were compared with reimbursement recommendation data from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee (PBAC) of Australia, and the Common Drug Review (CDR) and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug review (pCODR) of Canada. The most recent guidelines from the three agencies regarding the recommended methods of economic evaluation and comparator selection were also compared. During the observation period, 25 products were evaluated by all three countries. No significant differences in the comparator(s)’ selection or methods of economic evaluation were found, but the CDR was significantly less likely to positively recommend products compared with the other agencies (p=0.023). The agreement between agencies on selected comparator(s) was moderate to significant (kappa statistics=0.590–0.669), whereas the reimbursement decisions (kappa statistics=0.042–0.296) and the methods of economic evaluation (kappa statistics=0.138–0.525) showed slight to fair agreement. We illustrated that the divergence in reimbursement decisions across jurisdictions is less related to comparator selection or the level of clinical evidence considered and more related to country-specific issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:5:p:577-587
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.011

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL:
    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

    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453, Decembrie.
    2. SeungJin Bae & SooOk Lee & Eun Bae & Sunmee Jang, 2013. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 257-267, April.
    3. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    4. Adrian Levy & Craig Mitton & Karissa Johnston & Brian Harrigan & Andrew Briggs, 2010. "International Comparison of Comparative Effectiveness Research in Five Jurisdictions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 813-830, October.
    5. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    6. Jesús Clemente & Carmen Marcuello & Antonio Montañés, 2008. "Pharmaceutical expenditure, total health‐care expenditure and GDP," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(10), pages 1187-1206, October.
    7. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Kawalec, Paweł & Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr, 2016. "Relating Health Technology Assessment recommendations and reimbursement decisions in Poland in years 2012–2014, a retrospective analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1240-1248.
    2. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    3. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    3. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    4. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    5. Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(5), pages 612-618, May.
    6. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    7. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    8. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    9. Buckingham, Ken J. & Devlin, Nancy Joy, 2009. "A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 362-367, January.
    10. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    11. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Herlitz, Anders & Horan, David, 2016. "Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 96-102.
    13. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    14. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    16. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Martin Buxton & James Chambers, 2011. "What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 285-288, August.
    18. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    20. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.


    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:119:y:2015:i:5:p:577-587. 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: .

    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.