Pdh23: Relevance of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Information to Health Care Decision-Makers in the United States

Cox, Emily J.; Motheral, Brenda R.; Griffis, Deborah

doi:10.1016/s1098-3015(11)70607-6

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the study of six macro-level decisionmaking bodies in Australia, Canada, Finland, the UK, and France, Anell [39] suggests that one major barrier to the explicit use of health economic evaluations was the lack of health economics competence across committees. Both Cox et al [41] and Grizzle et al [42] note that decision makers find economic evaluations difficult to understand. Bryan et al [36] argue that despite the extensive use of health economic evaluations by NICE, there was variability among committee members regarding the understanding of cost-effectiveness analysis.…”

Section: Macro Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Priority Setting and the Use of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Literature Review

Erntoft

2011

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Macro Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Priority Setting and the Use of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Literature Review

Erntoft

2011

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, despite the best endeavors of economists over many decades, it is widely acknowledged that economic approaches to priority setting have had only limited impact in practice (Drummond et al, 1997a;Hoffmann and Graf von der Schulenburg, 2000;Hoffmann et al, 2002). Much has been written about the wide range of factors that may cause decision makers to deviate from strict cost-effectiveness criteria when setting priorities (Robinson, 1999), and economists have proposed a wide range of implementation strategies that seek to enhance the use of the results of economic evaluation studies (Cox et al, 2000;Drummond and Weatherly, 2000;Ginsberg et al, 2000;Haan and Rutten, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priority setting in health – a political economy perspective

Goddard

Hauck

Smith

2005

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most countries face high demands on their health care systems and have limited resources with which to meet them. Priority setting seeks to address these problems by proposing rules to decide which groups of patients or disease areas should secure favoured access to limited health care resources. The economic approach towards priority setting, particularly in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis, is commonly advocated. However, despite many decades of refinement of the technical and methodological issues arising from the use of economic evaluation in priority setting, decision makers continue to diverge frequently from the principles of economic evaluation. Our approach in this paper is to highlight the potential contribution of models of political economy to understanding what constitutes rational behaviour when agents operate within political and institutional constraints. We argue that there may be potentially greater benefits to be gained from exploration and analysis of priority setting using models based on concepts such as median voter and competing interest groups, than from further efforts to refine the techniques of economic evaluation.

show abstract

“…In some areas of health care, for example, new vaccines for a national immunization program or a screening procedure for nationwide screening, formal cost-effectiveness studies play a role in decision making, but even then, costeffectiveness is never used as the main issue in policy making. Alas, policy makers seldom take cost-effectiveness considerations into account when making decisions (14,23,36,53,54), as discussed below.…”

Section: Priority Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health Services and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Banta

Wit

2008

Annu. Rev. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-effectiveness analysis as an aid to decision making has been increasingly publicized and discussed during the past two to three decades. However, the total body of cost-effectiveness analyses in health care is actually rather small, and high-quality studies are rather rare. Furthermore, the applications of economic analysis to health policy have been hampered by a number of problems, including those that are methodological and contextual. We consider a number of areas of public health policy but pay special attention to a growing area of inquiry and application: the overall coverage of health services. Cost-effectiveness analysis has played a relatively small role in general coverage decisions, but in recent years, it has been applied increasingly to decisions concerning pharmaceutical coverage. We speculate on concerning reasons for this particular focus in costeffectiveness analysis. Future progress will depend heavily on discussion and consensus building.

show abstract

Pdh23: Relevance of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Information to Health Care Decision-Makers in the United States

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Pharmaceutical Priority Setting and the Use of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Literature Review

Pharmaceutical Priority Setting and the Use of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Literature Review

Priority setting in health – a political economy perspective

Public Health Services and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About