IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands

  • Ties Hoomans

    (Section of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Johan L. Severens

    (Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Nicole van der Roer

    (Dutch Health Care Insurance Board, Diemen, the Netherlands)

  • Gepke O. Delwel

    (Dutch Health Care Insurance Board, Diemen, the Netherlands)

Registered author(s):

    Background:Background: In the Netherlands, decisions about the reimbursement of new pharmaceuticals are based on cost effectiveness, as well as therapeutic value and budget impact. Since 1 January 2005, drug manufacturers are formally required to substantiate the cost effectiveness of drugs that have therapeutic added value in comparison with existing ones through pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research provide methods guidance, ensuring consistency in both the evidence and the decision-making process about drug reimbursement. Abstract: Aim:Aim: This study reviewed the methodological quality of all 21 formally required pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals between 1 January 2005 and 1 October 2008, and verified whether these evaluations complied with pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Abstract: Methods:Methods: Data on the quality of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations were extracted from the pharmacoeconomic reports published by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ). The Board's newsletters provided information on the advice to, and reimbursement decisions made by, the Dutch Minister of Health. All data extraction was carried out by two independent reviewers, and descriptive analyses were conducted. Abstract: Results:Results: The methodological quality was sound in only 8 of the 21 pharmacoeconomic evaluations. In most cases, the perspective of analysis, the comparator drugs, and the reporting of both total and incremental costs and effects were correct. However, drug indication, form (i.e. cost utility/cost effectiveness) and time horizon of the evaluations were frequently flawed. Moreover, the costs and effects of the pharmaceuticals were not always analysed correctly, and modelling studies were often non-transparent. Twelve drugs were reimbursed, and nine were not. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: The compliance with pharmacoeconomic guidelines in economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals can be improved. This would improve the methodological quality of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations and ensure consistency in the evidence and the decision-making process for drug reimbursement in the Netherlands.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/pdfhandler.00019053-201230030-00005.pdf
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/fulltext.00019053-201230030-00005.htm
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 219-227

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:219-227
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:219-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.