IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i10p2116-2129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, Iestyn P.
  • Bryan, Stirling

Abstract

In a context of rapid technological advances in health care and increasing demand for expensive treatments, local formulary committees are key players in the management of scarce resources. However, little is known about the information and processes used when making decisions on the inclusion of new treatments. This paper reports research on the use of economic evaluations in technology coverage decisions in England, although the findings have a relevance to other health care systems with devolved responsibility for resource allocation. It reports a study of four local formulary committees in which both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Our main research finding is that it is an exception for cost-effectiveness analysis to inform technology coverage decisions. Barriers to use include access and expertise levels, concerns relating to the independence of analyses and problems with implementation of study recommendations. Further barriers derive from the constraints on decision makers, a lack of clarity over functions and aims of local committees, and the challenge of disinvestment in medical technologies. The relative weakness of the research-practice dynamics in this context suggests the need for a rethinking of the role of both analysts and decision makers. Our research supports the view that in order to be useful, analysis needs to better reflect the constraints of the local decision-making environment. We also recommend that local decision-making committees and bodies in the National Health Service more clearly identify the 'problems' which they are charged with solving and how their outputs contribute to broader finance and commissioning functions. This would help to establish the ways in which the routine use of cost-effectiveness analysis might become a reality. Summary of findings - Local formulary decision-making committees vary in their capacity, functions and scope of responsibility. Their primary function appears to be to control spending rather than evidence-based technology coverage. - Most committees routinely request information on clinical effect and costs but few request cost-effectiveness information. - Case study committees had only limited capacity to access and interpret economic evaluations. Further barriers included concerns regarding bias in studies, the inability to implement savings, and ethical objections to underlying values of health economics. - A number of features of the decision-making environment appeared to militate against emphasis on cost-effectiveness analysis including: unclear relationships with resource allocators; an explicitly political decision-making process, and; poorly specified decision-making criteria. - These factors, combined with constraints on the capacity to generate, access and interpret information, led to a minor role for cost-effectiveness analysis in the decision-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:10:p:2116-2129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00345-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Steven M. Teutsch & Marc L. Berger, 2005. "Evidence Synthesis and Evidence-Based Decision Making: Related But Distinct Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 487-489, September.
    2. Blumstein, James F., 1997. "The Oregon experiment: The role of cost-benefit analysis in the allocation of Medicaid funds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 545-554, August.
    3. Ross, Jayne, 1995. "The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers' perceptions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 103-110, February.
    4. Lyles, Alan & Luce, Bryan R. & Rentz, Anne M., 1997. "Managed care pharmacy, socioeconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 511-521, August.
    5. Sloan, Frank A. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn & Wilson, Alicia, 1997. "Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 523-533, August.
    6. Madden, Shannon & Martin, Douglas K. & Downey, Sarah & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 10-20, July.
    7. Drummond, Michael & Cooke, Jonathan & Walley, Tom, 1997. "Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 583-595, August.
    8. Jenkings, K Neil & Barber, Nick, 2004. "What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1757-1766, May.
    9. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    10. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    11. Duthie, Tessa & Trueman, Paul & Chancellor, Jeremy & Diez, Lara, 1999. "Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II: Is health economics `for good or evil'?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-157, January.
    12. Hasle-Pham, Elodie & Arnould, Benoit & Spath, Hans-Martin & Follet, Alain & Duru, Gerard & Marquis, Patrick, 2005. "Role of clinical, patient-reported outcome and medico-economic studies in the public hospital drug formulary decision-making process: results of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 205-212, February.
    13. Walley, Tom & Barton, Stuart & Cooke, Jonathan & Drummond, Michael, 1997. "Economic evaluations of drug therapy: attitudes of primary care prescribing advisers in Great Britain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 61-72, July.
    14. Bohmer, Paul & Pain, Charles & Watt, Alex & Abernethy, Paul & Sceats, Janet, 2001. "Maximising health gain within available resources in the New Zealand public health system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 37-50, 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. Rolfstam, Max & Phillips, Wendy & Bakker, Elmer, 2009. "Public Procurement of Innovation Diffusion: Exploring the Role of Institutions and Institutional Coordination," Papers in Innovation Studies 2009/7, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    3. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    4. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    5. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    6. Jommi, Claudio & Costa, Enrico & Michelon, Alessandra & Pisacane, Maria & Scroccaro, Giovanna, 2013. "Multi-tier drugs assessment in a decentralised health care system. The Italian case-study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 241-247.
    7. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
    8. Robinson, Suzanne & Williams, Iestyn & Dickinson, Helen & Freeman, Tim & Rumbold, Benedict, 2012. "Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2386-2393.
    9. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: A qualitative investigation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 261-270, March.
    10. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.

    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. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    2. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    3. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    4. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    5. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    6. Legood, Rosa & Wolstenholme, Jane & Gray, Alastair, 2009. "From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 193-200, February.
    7. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: A qualitative investigation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 261-270, March.
    8. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    9. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    10. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    11. Lin, Shu-Jou & Jan, Kuan-An & Kao, Jen-Tse, 2011. "Colleague interactions and new drug prescribing behavior: The case of the initial prescription of antidepressants in Taiwanese medical centers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1208-1213.
    12. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    13. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    14. James Mason & Martin Eccles & Nick Freemantle & Mike Drummond, 1998. "NICEly does it: economic analysis within evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Working Papers 164chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. 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.
    16. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    17. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    18. Ava John-Baptiste & Marilyn M. Schapira & Catherine Cravens & James D. Chambers & Peter J. Neumann & Joanna Siegel & William Lawrence, 2016. "The Role of Decision Models in Health Care Policy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 666-679, July.
    19. Abdulaziz Ibrahim Alzarea & Yusra Habib Khan & Abdullah Salah Alanazi & Muhammad Hammad Butt & Ziyad Saeed Almalki & Abdullah K. AlAhmari & Saud Alsahali & Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, 2022. "Barriers and Facilitators of Pharmacoeconomic Studies: A Review of Evidence from the Middle Eastern Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-18, June.
    20. 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.

    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:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:10:p:2116-2129. 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.