Show simple item record

Use of Pharmacoeconomics Information—Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Use of Pharmacoeconomic/Health Economic Information in Health-Care Decision Making

dc.contributor.authorDrummond, Michaelen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Ruthen_US
dc.contributor.authorFendrick, A. Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorFullerton, Peteen_US
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Roden_US
dc.contributor.authorBarbieri, Marcoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:56:17Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:56:17Z
dc.date.issued2003-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationDrummond, Michael; Brown, Ruth; Fendrick, A. Mark; Fullerton, Pete; Neumann, Peter; Taylor, Rod; Barbieri, Marco (2003). "Use of Pharmacoeconomics Information—Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Use of Pharmacoeconomic/Health Economic Information in Health-Care Decision Making." Value in Health 6(4): 407-416. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73067>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1098-3015en_US
dc.identifier.issn1524-4733en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73067
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12859580&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Despite the growing number of pharmacoeconomic (PE)/health economic (HE) studies, very little is known about their use by decision makers. The objectives of the Task Force were to ensure that the good research practices of PE/HE studies pay attention to the needs of health-care decision makers and to develop a “toolbox” for the health-care decision maker wanting to interpret and use PE/HE studies. Methods: The membership of the Task Force consisted of individuals involved in making decisions about the availability or use of medicines and researchers into the use of economic evaluations. The group communicated by E-mail and face-to-face meetings. A literature review of decision makers’ attitudes toward PE/HE studies and published economic evaluation guidelines was undertaken. In addition, a focus group discussion was held with opinion leaders in managed care pharmacy. Results: The literature review identified 16 surveys of decision makers’ attitudes toward PE/HE studies and 15 published guidelines that outlined reporting requirements for economic evaluations. These were reviewed and classified. Based on the published literature and comments from decision makers, seven additional reporting requirements for studies were specified. Conclusions: While the Task Force's additional reporting requirements may be helpful to decision makers, they raise a number of issues. These include the feasibility of meeting the additional requirements, whether decision makers should receive more education in economic evaluation, and whether there should be more study of health-care decision-making procedures themselves.en_US
dc.format.extent106062 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Science Incen_US
dc.rights2003 ISPORen_US
dc.subject.otherCost-effectiveness Analysisen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Makingen_US
dc.subject.otherGuidelinesen_US
dc.subject.otherImplementationen_US
dc.titleUse of Pharmacoeconomics Information—Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Use of Pharmacoeconomic/Health Economic Information in Health-Care Decision Makingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of York, York, UK;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherMEDTAP International, London, UK;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherHarvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherInnovus Research, Bucks, UKen_US
dc.identifier.pmid12859580en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73067/1/j.1524-4733.2003.64245.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.64245.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceValue in Healthen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCain J. System helps P & T committees get pharmacoeconomic data they need. Manag Care 2001; April: 24C – 24J.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarbieri M, Drummond MF. The Use of HTA Evidence in Decision-Making. Report to ECHTA/ECAHI Working Group 6. Mimeo: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers’ perceptions. Health Policy 1995; 31: 103 – 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLuce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 79 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLuce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Aff 1996; 15: 168 – 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Das A. The review process used by US health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11: 294 – 302.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF. Coverage decisions for medical technology by managed care. relationship to organizational and physician payment characteristics. Am J Man Care 1996; 2: 1321 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDrummond MF, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 583 – 95.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSloan FA, Whetten-Goldstein K, Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost-containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 523 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom—Phase II. Health Policy 1999; 46: 143 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, on behalf of the EUROMET group. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy 2000; 52: 179 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurns A, Charlwood P, Darling D, et al. Better Information, Better Outcomes: The Use of Health Technology Assessment and Clinical Effectiveness Data in Health Care Purchasing Decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States. Washington DC: Millbank Memorial Fund, 2000 Jul.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMotheral BR, Grizzle AJ, Armstrong EP, et al. Role of pharmacoeconomics in drug benefit decision-making: results of a survey. Formulary 2000; 35: 416 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox E, Motheral B, Griffis D. Relevance of pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes information to health care decision-makers in the United States. Value Health 2000; 3: 162.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGinsberg ME, Kravitz RL, Sandberg WA. A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care. West J Med 2000; 173: 390 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnell A, Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines: a survey of attitudes in Swedish Formulary Committees. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 175 – 85.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoffmann C, Stoykova BA, Nixon J, et al. Do healthcare decision-makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities. Value Health 2002; 5: 71 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrizzle AJ, Olson BM, Motheral BR, et al. Therapeutic value: who decides? Pharmaceut Executive 2000; 18: 84 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaro J, Klittich W, McGuire A, et al. The West of Scotland coronary prevention study: economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1577 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDrummond MF, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond MF, McGuire AL, eds., Economic Evaluation of Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225 – 50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHutton J, Brown RE. Use of economic evaluation in decision making: what needs to change? Value Health 2002; 5: 65 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBriggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723 – 40.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1530 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference26  Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. A Proposal for Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE), 1995.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference27  Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (2nd ed.). Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference28  Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Ontario: The Ministry, 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference29  College des Economistes de la Sante. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmaco-Economic Studies: Evaluation for French Pharmaco-Economic Studies. Paris: The College, 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGraf VD, Schulenberg JM. Hanover Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Health Services [in German: Hanover Guidelines fÜr die Ökonomische Evaluation von GesundheitsgÜtern und -dienstleistungen]. ( Diskussionspapier Nr 10, Vol. 57 ). Hanover: Institute fÜr Versicherungsbetriebslehre, Die Pharmazeutishe Industrie, 1995 Jan. p. 265 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSzende Á, MogyorÓsy Z, Pallos G, et al. Methodological Guidelines for Conducting Economic Evaluation of Health-Care Interventions in Hungary. 2001. Available on request: AgotaSzende@hotmail.comen_US
dc.identifier.citedreference32  Ziekenfondraad. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondraad), 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference33  Norwegian Medicines Control Authority. The Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Application for Reimbursement. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Control Authority Department of Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOrlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Polish guidelines for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Farm Ekon 2000 ( Suppl 1 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference35  The Portuguese Pharmacy and Medicines Institute. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies on Drugs. Lisbon: INFARMED, 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference36  Bundesamt fÜr Sozialversicherung. Swiss Manual for the Standardization of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology. (Second draft). Bern: Bundesamt fÜr Sozialversicherung, 1995.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference37  The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party (Drummond MF, Chair). Guidelines for authors and peer-reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Br Med J 1996; 313: 275 – 83.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference38  National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Revised Guidelines for Manufacturers, Sponsors of Technologies Making Submissions to the In-stitute [Internet]. Technology Appraisal Process Series No. 5. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uken_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGricar JA, Langley PC, Luce B, et al. AMCP's Format for Formulary Submissions: A Format for Submissions of Clinical and Economic Evaluation Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Managed Health Care Systems in the United States. Alexandria (VA): Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference40  Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Washington (DC): PhRMA, 1995.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.