IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v27y2018i2pe41-e54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework

Author

Listed:
  • Kasper M. Johannesen
  • Karl Claxton
  • Mark J. Sculpher
  • Allan J. Wailoo

Abstract

This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyse the design of the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies. The framework characterises the appraisal processes as a diagnostic test aimed at identifying cost‐effective (true positive) and non‐cost‐effective (true negative) technologies. Using the framework, factors that influence the value of operating an appraisal process, in terms of net gain to population health, are identified. The framework is used to gain insight into current policy questions including (a) how rigorous the process should be, (b) who should have the burden of proof, and (c) how optimal design changes when allowing for appeals, price reductions, resubmissions, and re‐evaluations. The paper demonstrates that there is no one optimal appraisal process and the process should be adapted over time and to the specific technology under assessment. Optimal design depends on country‐specific features of (future) technologies, for example, effect, price, and size of the patient population, which might explain the difference in appraisal processes across countries. It is shown that burden of proof should be placed on the producers and that the impact of price reductions and patient access schemes on the producer's price setting should be considered when designing the appraisal process.

Suggested Citation

  • Kasper M. Johannesen & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Allan J. Wailoo, 2018. "How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 41-54, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:e41-e54
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3561
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3561
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3561?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia M. Danzon & Y. Richard Wang & Liang Wang, 2005. "The impact of price regulation on the launch delay of new drugs—evidence from twenty‐five major markets in the 1990s," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 269-292, March.
    2. Emelie Heintz & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Salah Ghabri & Francoise Hamers & Valentina Rupel & Renata Slabe-Erker & Thomas Davidson, 2016. "Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 59-76, January.
    3. Emelie Heintz & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Salah Ghabri & Francoise F. Hamers & Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Renata Slabe-Erker & Thomas Davidson, 2016. "Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 59-76, January.
    4. Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    6. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    7. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    8. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    9. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.
    10. Kaltenthaler, Eva & Tappenden, Paul & Booth, Andrew & Akehurst, Ron, 2008. "Comparing methods for full versus single technology appraisal: A case study of docetaxel and paclitaxel for early breast cancer," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 389-400, September.
    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. Kasper Johannesen & Magnus Janzon & Tomas Jernberg & Martin Henriksson, 2020. "Subcategorizing the Expected Value of Perfect Implementation to Identify When and Where to Invest in Implementation Initiatives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 327-338, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    3. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    4. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    7. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    8. WH Rogowski, 2013. "An Economic Theory Of The Fourth Hurdle," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 600-610, May.
    9. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    10. Thomas Grochtdreis & Judith Dams & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Konnopka, 2019. "Health-related quality of life measured with the EQ-5D-5L: estimation of normative index values based on a representative German population sample and value set," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 933-944, August.
    11. Martin Forster & Paolo Pertile, 2013. "Optimal decision rules for HTA under uncertainty: a wider, dynamic perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1507-1514, December.
    12. Andrea Gabrio & Michael J. Daniels & Gianluca Baio, 2020. "A Bayesian parametric approach to handle missing longitudinal outcome data in trial‐based health economic evaluations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 607-629, February.
    13. Claire Rothery & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & David Epstein & Rosanna Tarricone & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 109-123, February.
    14. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2018. "Decision Criterion and Value of Information Analysis: Optimal Aspirin Dosage for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 427-438, May.
    15. Stefan Greß & Jürgen Wasem & Dea Niebuhr, 2006. "Pricing and Reimbursement of Prescription Drugs in German Social Health Insurance," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(2), pages 39-47, 07.
    16. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    17. Gandjour, Afschin & Chernyak, Nadja, 2011. "A new prize system for drug innovation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 170-177.
    18. Wei Yang & Heather Gage & Daniel Jackson & Monique Raats, 2018. "The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of plant sterol or stanol-enriched functional foods as a primary prevention strategy for people with cardiovascular disease risk in England: a modeling study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(7), pages 909-922, September.
    19. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    20. Barnsley, P. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Fischer, A. & Towse, A., 2016. "Uncertainty and Risk in HTA Decision Making," Research Papers 001764, Office of Health Economics.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:e41-e54. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.