Considerations when applying equity weights within economic evaluation when making drug reimbursement decisions.

IF 2.7 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Health Economics Review Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1186/s13561-024-00556-w
Doug Coyle
{"title":"Considerations when applying equity weights within economic evaluation when making drug reimbursement decisions.","authors":"Doug Coyle","doi":"10.1186/s13561-024-00556-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When decision-makers use economic evaluation to facilitate making decisions about reimbursing whether to reimburse pharmaceuticals within a publicly funded health care system, they may consider whether to prioritise specific patient populations or diseases: e.g., cancer or rare disease. This can be achieved through applying equity weights to outcomes such as QALYs. Decision makers, however, must choose whether equity weights are applied to solely the treatment of a specific disease or to treatments of the patient with the specific disease. Without such clarification, confusion may arise which can hinder the work of those who must make reimbursement recommendations and decisions. This study examines the repercussions of implementation of equity weights. For illustration, two hypothetical case studies relating to a rare disease are considered. The first case study demonstrates that applying equity weights only to the treatment of the rare disease of interest can lead to a patient with that rare disease accruing less benefits at a higher cost to the payer. The second case study demonstrates that if equity weights are applied to the patients who have a specific rare disease, then funding of a treatment for a common disease may be restricted only to those patients for whom treatment is more costly and less effective. As discussions continue with respect to applying equity weights within economic evaluation, it is important that the repercussions outlined are recognised.</p>","PeriodicalId":46936,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559153/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00556-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When decision-makers use economic evaluation to facilitate making decisions about reimbursing whether to reimburse pharmaceuticals within a publicly funded health care system, they may consider whether to prioritise specific patient populations or diseases: e.g., cancer or rare disease. This can be achieved through applying equity weights to outcomes such as QALYs. Decision makers, however, must choose whether equity weights are applied to solely the treatment of a specific disease or to treatments of the patient with the specific disease. Without such clarification, confusion may arise which can hinder the work of those who must make reimbursement recommendations and decisions. This study examines the repercussions of implementation of equity weights. For illustration, two hypothetical case studies relating to a rare disease are considered. The first case study demonstrates that applying equity weights only to the treatment of the rare disease of interest can lead to a patient with that rare disease accruing less benefits at a higher cost to the payer. The second case study demonstrates that if equity weights are applied to the patients who have a specific rare disease, then funding of a treatment for a common disease may be restricted only to those patients for whom treatment is more costly and less effective. As discussions continue with respect to applying equity weights within economic evaluation, it is important that the repercussions outlined are recognised.

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
在做出药品报销决定时,在经济评估中应用公平权重的考虑因素。
当决策者利用经济评估来帮助做出是否在公共医疗系统内报销药品的决定时,他们可能会考虑是否优先考虑特定的患者群体或疾病:如癌症或罕见病。这可以通过对 QALYs 等结果应用公平权重来实现。然而,决策者必须选择公平权重是仅适用于特定疾病的治疗,还是适用于特定疾病患者的治疗。如果不加以说明,就可能会产生混淆,从而妨碍那些必须提出报销建议和作出报销决定的人的工作。本研究探讨了实施公平权重的影响。为了说明问题,我们考虑了两个与罕见病有关的假设案例研究。第一个案例研究表明,仅对相关罕见病的治疗应用公平权重会导致罕见病患者获得较少的收益,而支付方却要付出更高的成本。第二个案例研究表明,如果将公平权重应用于特定罕见病患者,那么对常见疾病治疗的资助可能只限于那些治疗成本更高、效果更差的患者。在继续讨论在经济评估中应用公平权重时,必须认识到上述反响。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.20%
发文量
59
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Economics Review is an international high-quality journal covering all fields of Health Economics. A broad range of theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy with a health economic focus will be considered for publication. Its scope includes macro- and microeconomics of health care financing, health insurance and reimbursement as well as health economic evaluation, health services research and health policy analysis. Further research topics are the individual and institutional aspects of health care management and the growing importance of health care in developing countries.
期刊最新文献
Public funding and young children vaccination coverage: Evidence from Socialist-Oriented Market Economy. Does targeted information impact consumers' preferences for value-based health insurance? Evidence from a survey experiment. Determinants of households' willingness to pay for health insurance in Burkina Faso. Regulation of mark-up on medicine prices in Zimbabwe: a pilot survey from 92 community pharmacies in the metropolitan area of Harare. Malaria in the Republic of Guinea 2022-2023: costs associated with the care pathway from the patient's perspective.
×
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