IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Reimbursement Decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: Influence of Policy and Clinical and Economic Factors

  • Warren G. Linley

    (Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK)

  • Dyfrig A. Hughes

    (Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK)

Registered author(s):

    Background:Background: There have been several explorations of factors influencing the reimbursement decisions of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) but not of other UK-based health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. Abstract: Objective:Objective: This study aimed to explore the factors influencing the recommendations of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) on the use of new medicines in Wales. Abstract: Methods:Methods: Based on public data, logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the influence of cost effectiveness, the quality and quantity of clinical evidence, disease characteristics (including rarity), budget impact, and a range of other factors on the recommendations of AWMSG and its subcommittee, the New Medicines Group (NMG). Abstract: Results:Results: Multivariate analyses of 47 AWMSG appraisals between 2007-9 correctly predicted 87% of decisions. The results are suggestive of a positive influence on recommendations of the presence of probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) but, counter-intuitively, a statistically significant negative influence of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [odds ratio 0.059; 95% CI 0.005, 0.699]. This latter observation may be attributed to our strict definition of high quality, which excluded the use of surrogate endpoints. Putative explanatory variables, including cost effectiveness, budget impact, underlying disease characteristics and 'ultra'-orphan drug status were not statistically significant predictors of final AWMSG decisions based on our dataset. Univariate analyses indicate that medicines with negative recommendations had significantly higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than those with positive recommendations, consistent with the pursuit of economic efficiency. There is also evidence that AWMSG considers equity issues via an ultra-orphan drugs policy. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: Consideration of decision uncertainty via PSA appears to positively influence the reimbursement decisions of AWMSG. The significant negative impact of the presence of high-quality RCTs, and the lack of a significant positive impact of other expected factors, may reflect issues in the plausibility of supporting evidence for medicines that received negative recommendations. Furthermore, it serves to emphasize the difficulties in applying the usual hierarchies of evidence to the HTA process, and in particular to the appraisal of high-cost specialist medicines close to market launch.

    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:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    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): 9 ()
    Pages: 779-794

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:9:p:779-794
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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:9:p:779-794. 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.