IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i1d10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Author

Listed:
  • Constanza Vargas

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rebecca Addo

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Milena Lewandowska

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Philip Haywood

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Richard Abreu Lourenco

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Stephen Goodall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Introduction Funding decisions for many health technologies occur without undergoing health technology assessment (HTA), in particular, without assessment of cost effectiveness (CE). Immunoglobulins in Australia are an interesting case study because they have been used for a long time for various rare disorders and their price is publicly available. Undertaking an HTA enables us to assess CE for an intervention for which there is limited clinical and economic evidence. This study presents a post-market review to assess the CE of immunoglobulins for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) compared with best supportive care. Methods A Markov model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Input sources included randomised controlled trials, single-arm studies, the Australian clinical criteria for MMN, clinical guidelines, previous Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) reports and inputs from clinical experts. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the CE results. Results The cost per patient of treating MMN with immunoglobulin was AU$275,853 versus AU$26,191when no treatment was provided, with accrued QALYs of 6.83 versus 6.04, respectively. The latter translated into a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$317,552/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility weights and the price of immunoglobulins. MSAC advised to continue funding of immunoglobulins on the grounds of efficacy, despite the high and uncertain ICER. Conclusions Beyond the ICER framework, other factors were acknowledged, including the high clinical need in a patient population for which there are no other active treatments available. This case study highlights the challenges of conducting HTA for already funded interventions, and the efficiency trade-offs required to fund effective high-cost therapies in rare conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Constanza Vargas & Rebecca Addo & Milena Lewandowska & Philip Haywood & Richard Abreu Lourenco & Stephen Goodall, 2024. "Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 73-84, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1
    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/s40258-023-00853-1?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. 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.
    2. Martin Wenzl & Suzannah Chapman, 2019. "Performance-based managed entry agreements for new medicines in OECD countries and EU member states: How they work and possible improvements going forward," OECD Health Working Papers 115, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pierluigi Russo & Matteo Zanuzzi & Angelica Carletto & Annalisa Sammarco & Federica Romano & Andrea Manca, 2023. "Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 107-117, January.
    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. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    4. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    5. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    6. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    8. Russo, Pierluigi & Carletto, Angelica & Németh, Gergely & Habl, Claudia, 2021. "Medicine price transparency and confidential managed-entry agreements in Europe: findings from the EURIPID survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1140-1145.
    9. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    10. Natalie Bohm & Sarah Bermingham & Frank Grimsey Jones & Daniela C. Gonçalves-Bradley & Alex Diamantopoulos & Jessica R. Burton & Hamish Laing, 2022. "The Challenges of Outcomes-Based Contract Implementation for Medicines in Europe," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 13-29, January.
    11. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    12. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    13. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    14. Néboa Zozaya & Javier Villaseca & Irene Fernández & Fernando Abdalla & Benito Cadenas-Noreña & Miguel Ángel Calleja & Pedro Gómez-Pajuelo & Jorge Mestre-Ferrándiz & Juan Oliva-Moreno & José Luis Trill, 2024. "A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 297-313, May.
    15. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Christine Leopold & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2025. "Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 53-66, January.
    16. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
    17. 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).
    18. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    19. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Jae Ho Jung & Dae Jung Kim & Kangho Suh & Jaeeun You & Je Ho Lee & Kyung In Joung & Dong Churl Suh, 2021. "International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.

    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:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1. 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.