评估药品和其他卫生技术的社会影响:当前最佳实践用户指南》。

Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Forum for Health Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2024-11-08 eCollection Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1515/fhep-2024-0014
Jason Shafrin, Jaehong Kim, Joshua T Cohen, Louis P Garrison, Dana A Goldman, Jalpa A Doshi, Joshua Krieger, Darius N Lakdawalla, Peter J Neumann, Charles E Phelps, Melanie D Whittington, Richard Willke
{"title":"评估药品和其他卫生技术的社会影响:当前最佳实践用户指南》。","authors":"Jason Shafrin, Jaehong Kim, Joshua T Cohen, Louis P Garrison, Dana A Goldman, Jalpa A Doshi, Joshua Krieger, Darius N Lakdawalla, Peter J Neumann, Charles E Phelps, Melanie D Whittington, Richard Willke","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2024-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's \"impact inventory\" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) \"value flower\" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a <i>user guide</i> for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"29-116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11567015/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.\",\"authors\":\"Jason Shafrin, Jaehong Kim, Joshua T Cohen, Louis P Garrison, Dana A Goldman, Jalpa A Doshi, Joshua Krieger, Darius N Lakdawalla, Peter J Neumann, Charles E Phelps, Melanie D Whittington, Richard Willke\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/fhep-2024-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's \\\"impact inventory\\\" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) \\\"value flower\\\" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a <i>user guide</i> for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"29-116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11567015/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2024-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2024-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究认为,从社会角度进行的价值评估应依赖于本文提出的广义成本效益分析(GCEA)框架。最近开发的价值评估清单--如第二成本效益小组的 "影响清单 "和国际药物经济学结果研究学会(ISPOR)的 "价值之花"--旨在从社会角度更全面地反映新医疗技术的效益和成本。然而,更广泛的价值要素在实践中的应用一直受到限制,部分原因是量化这些要素可能很复杂,另一个原因是自这些价值清单发布以来,在方法学方面取得了许多进步(如广义成本效益和风险调整成本效益)。为了便于从社会角度估算治疗价值,本文提供了一份最新的价值清单(称为 GCEA 价值花),以及一份用户指南,供卫生经济学研究人员和从业人员实施 GCEA。GCEA 考虑了 15 个更广泛的价值要素,包括四个类别:(i) 不确定性;(ii) 动态;(iii) 受益人;(iv) 附加价值成分。不确定性类别将患者的风险偏好纳入价值评估。动态类花瓣考虑了真实世界治疗价值的演变(如选择价值),并包括药品定价趋势(如未来的仿制药)。受益者类别考虑到了医疗技术可以使他人受益(如护理人员),以及社会可能会关注医疗利益的获得者(如公平性)。最后,GCEA 纳入了更广泛的价值来源(如社区溢出效应、生产力损失)。本 GCEA 用户指南旨在促进对这些价值要素的估算,并在从社会角度进行卫生技术评估时将这些价值纳入其中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.

This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's "impact inventory" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) "value flower" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a user guide for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

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
Forum for Health Economics and Policy
Forum for Health Economics and Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.
×
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