为南非基本药物选择和公共部门准则的药学卫生技术评估提供信息的卫生经济分析案例研究。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Trudy D Leong, Jacqui Miot, Andy Parrish, Jane Riddin, Yasmina Johnson, Tamara Kredo
{"title":"为南非基本药物选择和公共部门准则的药学卫生技术评估提供信息的卫生经济分析案例研究。","authors":"Trudy D Leong, Jacqui Miot, Andy Parrish, Jane Riddin, Yasmina Johnson, Tamara Kredo","doi":"10.1017/S0266462324000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Constrained resources under universal health coverage (UHC) necessitate a balance between medication costs and essential health system requirements. Policymakers practice priority-setting, as either implicit or explicit rationing, embedded in evidence-informed decision-making processes to guide funding decisions. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a method that may assist explicit evidence-informed priority setting. South Africa developed an official HTA methods guide in 2022, however before this, commissioning and performing economic evaluations was not standardized.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive collective case study to explore the impact of economic analyses on the selection of, and access to, essential medicines in South Africa. Four cases were purposefully selected, and both official information and secondary data, including media reports, were reviewed. Data elements were extracted and organized in a matrix. Cases were reported narratively with a positivist epistemological approach, presenting the authors' reflections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found economic analyses that reflected methodologies described in the HTA guide: international reference pricing, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact analyses. Economic analyses informing the 'resource-use' domain in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework supported decision-making, influenced market-shaping with price reductions of interventions through benchmarking (fosfomycin, flucytosine), improved equitable access nationally (flucytosine), and prioritized a defined patient group in a justifiable and transparent manner (bortezomib).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standardized HTA evaluation process guided by a nationally accepted framework is necessary for evidence-informed decision-making. Economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource use) should be consistently included when making decisions on new interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"40 1","pages":"e76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case studies of health economic analyses informing pharmaceutical health technology assessments for essential medicine selection and public-sector guidelines in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"Trudy D Leong, Jacqui Miot, Andy Parrish, Jane Riddin, Yasmina Johnson, Tamara Kredo\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462324000448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Constrained resources under universal health coverage (UHC) necessitate a balance between medication costs and essential health system requirements. Policymakers practice priority-setting, as either implicit or explicit rationing, embedded in evidence-informed decision-making processes to guide funding decisions. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a method that may assist explicit evidence-informed priority setting. South Africa developed an official HTA methods guide in 2022, however before this, commissioning and performing economic evaluations was not standardized.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive collective case study to explore the impact of economic analyses on the selection of, and access to, essential medicines in South Africa. Four cases were purposefully selected, and both official information and secondary data, including media reports, were reviewed. Data elements were extracted and organized in a matrix. Cases were reported narratively with a positivist epistemological approach, presenting the authors' reflections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found economic analyses that reflected methodologies described in the HTA guide: international reference pricing, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact analyses. Economic analyses informing the 'resource-use' domain in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework supported decision-making, influenced market-shaping with price reductions of interventions through benchmarking (fosfomycin, flucytosine), improved equitable access nationally (flucytosine), and prioritized a defined patient group in a justifiable and transparent manner (bortezomib).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standardized HTA evaluation process guided by a nationally accepted framework is necessary for evidence-informed decision-making. Economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource use) should be consistently included when making decisions on new interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"e76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000448\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全民健康覆盖(UHC)下有限的资源需要在药物费用和基本卫生系统要求之间取得平衡。政策制定者在循证决策过程中以隐性或显性定量配给的方式确定优先重点,以指导资助决策。卫生技术评估(HTA)是一种方法,可以帮助明确的循证确定优先事项。南非在2022年制定了官方的HTA方法指南,但在此之前,调试和执行经济评估并未标准化。方法:我们进行了一项描述性集体案例研究,以探讨经济分析对南非基本药物选择和可及性的影响。有目的地选择了四个案例,并对官方信息和包括媒体报道在内的二手数据进行了审查。数据元素被提取并组织成矩阵。以实证认识论的方法叙述个案,呈现作者的思考。结果:我们发现经济分析反映了HTA指南中描述的方法:国际参考定价、成本最小化、成本效益、成本效用和预算影响分析。在GRADE从证据到决策的框架中,为“资源利用”领域提供信息的经济分析支持了决策,通过基准测试(磷霉素、氟胞嘧啶)降低干预措施的价格,影响了市场形成,改善了全国的公平获取(氟胞嘧啶),并以合理和透明的方式优先考虑确定的患者群体(硼替佐米)。结论:在国家认可的框架指导下,标准化的HTA评估过程对于循证决策是必要的。在对新的干预措施作出决定时,经济分析(成本效益、可负担性和资源利用)应始终包括在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Case studies of health economic analyses informing pharmaceutical health technology assessments for essential medicine selection and public-sector guidelines in South Africa.

Background: Constrained resources under universal health coverage (UHC) necessitate a balance between medication costs and essential health system requirements. Policymakers practice priority-setting, as either implicit or explicit rationing, embedded in evidence-informed decision-making processes to guide funding decisions. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a method that may assist explicit evidence-informed priority setting. South Africa developed an official HTA methods guide in 2022, however before this, commissioning and performing economic evaluations was not standardized.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive collective case study to explore the impact of economic analyses on the selection of, and access to, essential medicines in South Africa. Four cases were purposefully selected, and both official information and secondary data, including media reports, were reviewed. Data elements were extracted and organized in a matrix. Cases were reported narratively with a positivist epistemological approach, presenting the authors' reflections.

Results: We found economic analyses that reflected methodologies described in the HTA guide: international reference pricing, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact analyses. Economic analyses informing the 'resource-use' domain in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework supported decision-making, influenced market-shaping with price reductions of interventions through benchmarking (fosfomycin, flucytosine), improved equitable access nationally (flucytosine), and prioritized a defined patient group in a justifiable and transparent manner (bortezomib).

Conclusion: A standardized HTA evaluation process guided by a nationally accepted framework is necessary for evidence-informed decision-making. Economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource use) should be consistently included when making decisions on new interventions.

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
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
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