Public value judgments about the criteria for reimbursement of medicines in South Korea.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2388815
Kyung-Bok Son
{"title":"Public value judgments about the criteria for reimbursement of medicines in South Korea.","authors":"Kyung-Bok Son","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2388815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study quantified the public value (PV) of the criteria and sub-criteria in the current drug reimbursement systems in South Korea and examined sociodemographic factors that associated with PV.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to quantify the PVs of criteria and sub-criteria. We developed a questionnaire to generate pairwise comparison matrices among criteria and sub-criteria. From 27 March to 1 April 2023, we recruited 1,000 study participants using a quota sampling method stratified by age, sex, and region based on Korean census data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PVs for the criteria were highest for clinical usefulness (28.5%), followed by cost-effectiveness (27.1%), budget impact (24.3%), and reimbursement in other countries (20.1%). The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants had a significant impact on the PVs of the criteria. Willingness to pay additional premiums for national health insurance was negatively associated with PV for clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness and positively associated with PV for reimbursement in other countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The public prioritized clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness as the main criteria. However, the PVs of the criteria were divergent and associated with sociodemographic factors. Divergent public interests require an evidence-informed deliberative process for reimbursement decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"53-61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2388815","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study quantified the public value (PV) of the criteria and sub-criteria in the current drug reimbursement systems in South Korea and examined sociodemographic factors that associated with PV.

Methods: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to quantify the PVs of criteria and sub-criteria. We developed a questionnaire to generate pairwise comparison matrices among criteria and sub-criteria. From 27 March to 1 April 2023, we recruited 1,000 study participants using a quota sampling method stratified by age, sex, and region based on Korean census data.

Results: The PVs for the criteria were highest for clinical usefulness (28.5%), followed by cost-effectiveness (27.1%), budget impact (24.3%), and reimbursement in other countries (20.1%). The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants had a significant impact on the PVs of the criteria. Willingness to pay additional premiums for national health insurance was negatively associated with PV for clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness and positively associated with PV for reimbursement in other countries.

Conclusions: The public prioritized clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness as the main criteria. However, the PVs of the criteria were divergent and associated with sociodemographic factors. Divergent public interests require an evidence-informed deliberative process for reimbursement decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
韩国公众对药品报销标准的价值判断。
目的:虽然新药的报销决定涉及价值判断,但尚未对非专业人士的价值判断进行深入研究。本研究量化了韩国现行药品报销制度中标准和次级标准的公共价值(PV),并考察了与 PV 相关的社会人口因素:方法:采用层次分析法(AHP)量化标准和次级标准的公众价值。我们编制了一份调查问卷,以生成标准和次级标准之间的成对比较矩阵。从 2023 年 3 月 27 日至 4 月 1 日,我们根据韩国人口普查数据,按照年龄、性别和地区分层,采用配额抽样法招募了 1,000 名研究参与者。我们使用特征值方法计算了标准和次级标准的 PV 值。使用线性回归方法分析了社会人口因素对 PV 的影响:结果:临床有用性标准的 PV 值最高(28.5%),其次是成本效益(27.1%)、预算影响(24.3%)和其他国家的报销标准(20.1%)。参与者的社会人口学特征对标准的 PV 值有显著影响。是否愿意为国家医疗保险支付额外保费与临床实用性和成本效益的 PV 值呈负相关,而与在其他国家报销的 PV 值呈正相关:公众将临床实用性和成本效益作为主要标准。结论:公众将临床实用性和成本效益作为主要的优先标准,但这些标准的PV值存在差异,且与社会人口因素有关。不同的公众利益要求在做出报销决定时采用以证据为依据的审议程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
期刊最新文献
Preferences of nurses in the United Kingdom for attributes of pediatric hexavalent vaccines: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient-relevance of outcome measures in breast cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional comparative analysis of patient preferences and trials conducted between 2014 and 2024. Evaluation of biological drug consumption in Italy during 2022: a comparative analysis between two healthcare facilities. Cost comparison of F(ab')2 and Fab antivenoms for pit viper envenomation in the United States: a real-world analysis. Autologous stem-cell transplantation and maintenance therapy for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a network meta-analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1