By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Unifying Research and Reimbursement Decisions: Case Studies Demonstrating the Sequence of Assessment and Judgments Required

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Published copy (DOI)

Author(s)

Department/unit(s)

Publication details

JournalValue in Health
DateE-pub ahead of print - 13 Aug 2015
DatePublished (current) - Sep 2015
Issue number6
Volume18
Number of pages11
Pages (from-to)865-875
Early online date13/08/15
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The key principles regarding what assessments lead to different types of guidance about the use of health technologies (Only in Research, Approval with Research, Approve, or Reject) provide an explicit and transparent framework for technology appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to demonstrate how these principles and assessments can be applied in practice through the use of a seven-point checklist of assessment.

METHODS: The value of access to a technology and the value of additional evidence are explored through the application of the checklist to the case studies of enhanced external counterpulsation for chronic stable angina and clopidogrel for the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

RESULTS: The case studies demonstrate the importance of considering 1) the expected cost-effectiveness and population net health effects; 2) the need for evidence and whether the type of research required can be conducted once a technology is approved for widespread use; 3) whether there are sources of uncertainty that cannot be resolved by research but only over time; and 4) whether there are significant (opportunity) costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered.

CONCLUSIONS: The checklist demonstrates that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Only in Research may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs. It is only approval that can be ruled out if a technology is not expected to be cost-effective. Lack of cost-effectiveness is not a necessary or sufficient condition for rejection.

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations