经合组织部分国家评估和报销新药的现行方法综述》。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Néboa Zozaya, Javier Villaseca, Irene Fernández, Fernando Abdalla, Benito Cadenas-Noreña, Miguel Ángel Calleja, Pedro Gómez-Pajuelo, Jorge Mestre-Ferrándiz, Juan Oliva-Moreno, José Luis Trillo, Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega
{"title":"经合组织部分国家评估和报销新药的现行方法综述》。","authors":"Néboa Zozaya, Javier Villaseca, Irene Fernández, Fernando Abdalla, Benito Cadenas-Noreña, Miguel Ángel Calleja, Pedro Gómez-Pajuelo, Jorge Mestre-Ferrándiz, Juan Oliva-Moreno, José Luis Trillo, Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00867-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.\",\"authors\":\"Néboa Zozaya, Javier Villaseca, Irene Fernández, Fernando Abdalla, Benito Cadenas-Noreña, Miguel Ángel Calleja, Pedro Gómez-Pajuelo, Jorge Mestre-Ferrándiz, Juan Oliva-Moreno, José Luis Trillo, Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-023-00867-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00867-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00867-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在回顾不同发达国家目前对新药的评估和资助程序,以提供一个具有详细、同质和最新信息的比较框架:方法:利用 PubMed、Google Scholar 和灰色文献来源,对 2021 年 7 月至 12 月间的科学出版物、报告和网站进行了审查。搜索的主要项目是参与者和过程,包括时间表、临床和经济评估的特点、利益相关者的参与、价格和报销决定的要素、成本效益阈值和特定基金。所分析的 13 个国家包括澳大利亚、加拿大、英国、法国、德国、意大利、日本、荷兰、葡萄牙、苏格兰、韩国、西班牙和瑞典:结果:8 个国家的评估过程与定价决策分开进行。各国通过多属性价值尺度、算法、非规定性标准清单或质量调整生命年(QALYs)来衡量每种药物的附加治疗价值。卫生技术评估(HTA)方法在结果测量、诱导技术、比较对象和视角方面各不相同。用于定价和报销的标准包括人文、临床和经济方面。只有苏格兰、英格兰、荷兰、加拿大和葡萄牙使用明确的效率阈值。医疗保健专业人员参与了所有评估委员会的工作,在大多数国家,患者的参与度也越来越高。从获得上市许可到完成评估和定价过程的正式时间从 126 天到 540 天不等:大多数受分析国家都呈现出一种以价值为基础的趋势,这种方法不仅考虑了社会的资金价值,还考虑了其他经济、临床和人文标准。良好做法包括稳健性、透明度、独立性和参与性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.

Methods: Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.

Results: Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.

Conclusions: Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

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
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
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