IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i4d10.1007_s40258-022-00721-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations: Updates in the Third Version

Author

Listed:
  • Eun-Young Bae

    (Gyeongsang National University)

  • Jihyung Hong

    (Gachon University)

  • SeungJin Bae

    (Ewha Womans University)

  • Seokyung Hahn

    (Seoul National University)

  • Hyonggin An

    (Korea University)

  • Eun-joo Hwang

    (Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service)

  • Seung-min Lee

    (Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service)

  • Tae-jin Lee

    (Seoul National University)

Abstract

The first version of the pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines was published in South Korea in 2006. Despite its first revision in 2011, there were still ambiguities in its interpretation. Moreover, methodologies for estimating effectiveness and costs have also evolved since then. Under these circumstances, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service published the third version in January 2021. This article reviews the revision process and major changes made in the new edition of the PE guidelines. The revision was processed through reviews of the previous 50 PE submissions, international guidelines, academic literature, and surveys and advisory meetings to obtain stakeholders’ opinions. The analysis perspective has changed from a limited societal perspective to a healthcare system perspective. In addition to the drug with the highest market share, drugs used in clinical trials can be selected as comparators under certain conditions. The discount rate decreased from 5% to 4.5%. Furthermore, the revised guidelines provide more detailed and specific instructions for items including non-inferiority margin, extrapolation, utility elicitation, and uncertainty. Treatment switch and co-dependent technology guidelines are newly included; the budget impact analysis guideline is deleted. Through this revision, transparency and consistency of decision-making is expected to improve.

Suggested Citation

  • Eun-Young Bae & Jihyung Hong & SeungJin Bae & Seokyung Hahn & Hyonggin An & Eun-joo Hwang & Seung-min Lee & Tae-jin Lee, 2022. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations: Updates in the Third Version," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 467-477, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00721-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00721-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00721-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-022-00721-4?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. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1999. "Inter-Generational Equity and the Rate of Discount in Long-Term Social Investment," International Economic Association Series, in: Murat R. Sertel (ed.), Contemporary Economic Issues, chapter 5, pages 89-102, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. SeungJin Bae & Eun Bae & Sang Lim, 2014. "Sourcing Quality-of-Life Weights Obtained from Previous Studies: Theory and Reality in Korea," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 141-150, June.
    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. Iyn-Hyang Lee & Karen Bloor & Eun-Young Bae, 2023. "A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 347-359, March.
    2. Jaenam Lee, 2022. "Evaluation of Automatic Irrigation System for Rice Cultivation and Sustainable Agriculture Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-12, 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. Hugh Gravelle & Dave Smith, 2001. "Discounting for health effects in cost–benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 587-599, October.
    2. Mohamed Mabrouk, 2005. "Intergenerational anonymity as an alternative to the discounted- sum criterion in the calculus of optimal growth II: Pareto optimality and some economic interpretations," GE, Growth, Math methods 0511007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Geoffrey Heal & Bengt Kriström, 2002. "Uncertainty and Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 3-39, June.
    4. Markus Knell, 2005. "On the Design of Sustainable and Fair PAYG Pension Systems When Cohort Sizes Change," Working Papers 95, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    5. Mark A. Moore & Anthony E. Boardman & Aidan R. Vining, 2020. "Social Discount Rates for Seventeen Latin American Countries: Theory and Parameter Estimation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(1), pages 43-71, January.
    6. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Mohamed Mabrouk, 2005. "Intergenerational anonymity as an alternative to the discounted- sum criterion in the calculus of optimal growth I: Consensual optimality," GE, Growth, Math methods 0510013, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00721-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.