Comparative Review of Added Health Benefits of the Drugs Listed through Economic Evaluation Exemption Procedure in Korea: Cases of France, Germany, and Canada

Eun-Young Bae, Sohee Cha, Hwa-Ryeong Lim, Hyejin Lee, Jihyung Hong
{"title":"Comparative Review of Added Health Benefits of the Drugs Listed through Economic Evaluation Exemption Procedure in Korea: Cases of France, Germany, and Canada","authors":"Eun-Young Bae, Sohee Cha, Hwa-Ryeong Lim, Hyejin Lee, Jihyung Hong","doi":"10.17480/psk.2024.68.1.62","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study assessed the additional health benefits of the drugs listed through the Economic Evaluation Exemption Procedure (EEEP) in Korea. We conducted a comparative review of 32 EEEP drugs listed between May 2015 and July 2022, comparing how they were assessed in France, Germany, and Canada. To collect the data, we reviewed the evaluations conducted by the relevant agency in each country and identified if the additional benefit exists and how significant it is. Additionally, the size of the benefit gains assessed by each agency was categorized as “High” or “Low,” allowing us to evaluate the consistency among these countries. In France, only 38% of the 34 drugs compared demonstrated moderate or higher levels of additional benefit. Germany acknowledged substantial benefit improvement in 27% of the 30 drugs assessed, while 73% showed minor, unquantifiable, or no additional benefits. In Canada, 5 out of 22 cases have been identified as providing significant additional benefit. The level of inter-country consistency in the assessment results from these three countries was somewhat limited. Based on the evaluation results in France, Germany, and Canada, the additional benefits of EEEP drugs over existing treatments were not substantial in many cases. Even though the EEEP was introduced to improve accessibility to high-cost drugs for medical conditions with unmet needs, it is necessary to reconsider whether to allow exceptions for drugs with low therapeutic value.","PeriodicalId":23923,"journal":{"name":"Yakhak Hoeji","volume":"57 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yakhak Hoeji","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17480/psk.2024.68.1.62","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study assessed the additional health benefits of the drugs listed through the Economic Evaluation Exemption Procedure (EEEP) in Korea. We conducted a comparative review of 32 EEEP drugs listed between May 2015 and July 2022, comparing how they were assessed in France, Germany, and Canada. To collect the data, we reviewed the evaluations conducted by the relevant agency in each country and identified if the additional benefit exists and how significant it is. Additionally, the size of the benefit gains assessed by each agency was categorized as “High” or “Low,” allowing us to evaluate the consistency among these countries. In France, only 38% of the 34 drugs compared demonstrated moderate or higher levels of additional benefit. Germany acknowledged substantial benefit improvement in 27% of the 30 drugs assessed, while 73% showed minor, unquantifiable, or no additional benefits. In Canada, 5 out of 22 cases have been identified as providing significant additional benefit. The level of inter-country consistency in the assessment results from these three countries was somewhat limited. Based on the evaluation results in France, Germany, and Canada, the additional benefits of EEEP drugs over existing treatments were not substantial in many cases. Even though the EEEP was introduced to improve accessibility to high-cost drugs for medical conditions with unmet needs, it is necessary to reconsider whether to allow exceptions for drugs with low therapeutic value.
对韩国通过经济评估豁免程序上市的药品的附加健康益处进行比较审查:法国、德国和加拿大的案例
本研究评估了韩国通过经济评估豁免程序(EEEP)上市的药物的额外健康益处。我们对 2015 年 5 月至 2022 年 7 月期间上市的 32 种 EEEP 药物进行了对比审查,比较了法国、德国和加拿大对这些药物的评估方式。为了收集数据,我们查阅了各国相关机构进行的评估,并确定了额外获益是否存在及其显著程度。此外,我们还将每个机构评估的收益大小分为 "高 "或 "低",以便评估这些国家之间的一致性。在法国,所比较的 34 种药物中只有 38% 显示出中等或更高水平的额外收益。德国承认,在 30 种接受评估的药物中,有 27% 的药物具有实质性的疗效改善,而 73% 的药物则表现出轻微、无法量化或无额外疗效。在加拿大,22 个案例中有 5 个被认定为提供了显著的额外益处。这三个国家的评估结果在国家间的一致性程度有限。根据法国、德国和加拿大的评估结果,在许多情况下,EEEP 药物比现有治疗方法的额外效益并不显著。尽管引入 EEEP 的目的是为了改善高成本药物的可及性,以治疗需求未得到满足的病 症,但有必要重新考虑是否允许治疗价值低的药物例外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信