卫生技术评估与患者权利:评估与获取?

F. Houÿez, Y. Cam, F. Bignami, F. Macchia, F. Faurisson
{"title":"卫生技术评估与患者权利:评估与获取?","authors":"F. Houÿez, Y. Cam, F. Bignami, F. Macchia, F. Faurisson","doi":"10.3233/PPL-2011-0335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patients’ organisations call for an assessment of the clinical added value of orphan drugs at the time of the marketing authorisation evaluation. The European Commission has commissioned Ernst & Young to explore the feasibility of a new Committee at the European Medicines Agency1. A new drug candidate faces a number of hurdles on its journey to reach the patient. Regulators are the first, and right after are the Health Technology Agencies and payers. Things can turn sour, from a political point of view, when that second scenario happens, when the regulators say “yes this drug is safe and effective” and the payers say “Oh well but we won’t reimburse it”. Regulators and health technology assessment experts have recently started to harmonise their respective methodologies to avoid some degree of redundancy and contradictions in their respective opinions. Patients are participating in the decision making at the European Medicines Agency, and work closely with some national regulatory agencies. More systematic involvement with health technology assessment agencies is only beginning. This paper illustrates some of the issues patients are discussing with health technology assessment bodies.","PeriodicalId":348240,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law","volume":"71 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Technology Assessment and patients' rights: Assess versus access?\",\"authors\":\"F. Houÿez, Y. Cam, F. Bignami, F. Macchia, F. Faurisson\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/PPL-2011-0335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Patients’ organisations call for an assessment of the clinical added value of orphan drugs at the time of the marketing authorisation evaluation. The European Commission has commissioned Ernst & Young to explore the feasibility of a new Committee at the European Medicines Agency1. A new drug candidate faces a number of hurdles on its journey to reach the patient. Regulators are the first, and right after are the Health Technology Agencies and payers. Things can turn sour, from a political point of view, when that second scenario happens, when the regulators say “yes this drug is safe and effective” and the payers say “Oh well but we won’t reimburse it”. Regulators and health technology assessment experts have recently started to harmonise their respective methodologies to avoid some degree of redundancy and contradictions in their respective opinions. Patients are participating in the decision making at the European Medicines Agency, and work closely with some national regulatory agencies. More systematic involvement with health technology assessment agencies is only beginning. This paper illustrates some of the issues patients are discussing with health technology assessment bodies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law\",\"volume\":\"71 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/PPL-2011-0335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/PPL-2011-0335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

患者组织要求在上市许可评估时对孤儿药的临床附加价值进行评估。欧盟委员会已委托安永会计师事务所(Ernst & Young)研究在欧洲药品管理局设立一个新委员会的可行性。一种新的候选药物在到达患者手中的过程中面临着许多障碍。首先是监管机构,其次是卫生技术机构和支付方。从政治角度来看,当第二种情况发生时,事情可能会变得糟糕,当监管机构说“是的,这种药是安全有效的”而付款人说“哦,好吧,但我们不会报销”。监管机构和卫生技术评估专家最近开始协调各自的方法,以避免各自意见中出现某种程度的冗余和矛盾。患者正在参与欧洲药品管理局的决策,并与一些国家监管机构密切合作。更系统地参与卫生技术评估机构才刚刚开始。本文阐述了患者与卫生技术评估机构讨论的一些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health Technology Assessment and patients' rights: Assess versus access?
Patients’ organisations call for an assessment of the clinical added value of orphan drugs at the time of the marketing authorisation evaluation. The European Commission has commissioned Ernst & Young to explore the feasibility of a new Committee at the European Medicines Agency1. A new drug candidate faces a number of hurdles on its journey to reach the patient. Regulators are the first, and right after are the Health Technology Agencies and payers. Things can turn sour, from a political point of view, when that second scenario happens, when the regulators say “yes this drug is safe and effective” and the payers say “Oh well but we won’t reimburse it”. Regulators and health technology assessment experts have recently started to harmonise their respective methodologies to avoid some degree of redundancy and contradictions in their respective opinions. Patients are participating in the decision making at the European Medicines Agency, and work closely with some national regulatory agencies. More systematic involvement with health technology assessment agencies is only beginning. This paper illustrates some of the issues patients are discussing with health technology assessment bodies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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