中国卫生技术评估经济评价的关键问题:全国专家调查。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.020
Gordon G Liu, Haijing Guan, Nan Peng, Shitong Xie, Kang Wang, Larry Z Liu, Yanbing Zhou, Huajie Jin
{"title":"中国卫生技术评估经济评价的关键问题:全国专家调查。","authors":"Gordon G Liu, Haijing Guan, Nan Peng, Shitong Xie, Kang Wang, Larry Z Liu, Yanbing Zhou, Huajie Jin","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly crucial in medicine price negotiations in China, yet previous appraisals revealed national discrepancies on key economic evaluation issues: willingness-to-pay threshold, pricing models for multi-indication medicines, and comparator selection principles. This study aimed to collect expert opinions on these issues for future HTA evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide anonymous web-based survey encompassing experts across academia, HTA, consultancy/contract research organization/industry, service provider, and payer. In 2023, a generic invitation containing a web link to the questionnaire was disseminated via WeChat using convenience and snowball sampling. Agreement rates for questionnaire views were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The relationship between participants' responses and demographics was examined using appropriate logistic models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 303 responses were received from experts in 34 cities. Key expert views include a suggested base willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times gross domestic product (52.1% agreement); elevated thresholds for childhood diseases, rare diseases, end-of-life diseases, and first-in-class medicines (>78.0% agreement); a single pricing model for multi-indication medicines (60.4% agreement); consideration of multiple medicines as comparators (79.9% agreement); and avoiding the use of centrally procured medicines as comparators for medicines with a time to market of less than 3 years (71.0% agreement). Participants who are service provider had lower odds of selecting higher thresholds (odds ratio 0.26; P < .01) than responders from consultancy/contract research organization/industry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Expert views indicate the need for substantial changes in China's current HTA methods, highlighting the need for increased investment in HTA processes and expertise cultivation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key Issues of Economic Evaluations for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Nationwide Expert Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Gordon G Liu, Haijing Guan, Nan Peng, Shitong Xie, Kang Wang, Larry Z Liu, Yanbing Zhou, Huajie Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly crucial in medicine price negotiations in China, yet previous appraisals revealed national discrepancies on key economic evaluation issues: willingness-to-pay threshold, pricing models for multi-indication medicines, and comparator selection principles. This study aimed to collect expert opinions on these issues for future HTA evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide anonymous web-based survey encompassing experts across academia, HTA, consultancy/contract research organization/industry, service provider, and payer. In 2023, a generic invitation containing a web link to the questionnaire was disseminated via WeChat using convenience and snowball sampling. Agreement rates for questionnaire views were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The relationship between participants' responses and demographics was examined using appropriate logistic models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 303 responses were received from experts in 34 cities. Key expert views include a suggested base willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times gross domestic product (52.1% agreement); elevated thresholds for childhood diseases, rare diseases, end-of-life diseases, and first-in-class medicines (>78.0% agreement); a single pricing model for multi-indication medicines (60.4% agreement); consideration of multiple medicines as comparators (79.9% agreement); and avoiding the use of centrally procured medicines as comparators for medicines with a time to market of less than 3 years (71.0% agreement). Participants who are service provider had lower odds of selecting higher thresholds (odds ratio 0.26; P < .01) than responders from consultancy/contract research organization/industry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Expert views indicate the need for substantial changes in China's current HTA methods, highlighting the need for increased investment in HTA processes and expertise cultivation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:卫生技术评估(HTA)在中国的药品价格谈判中越来越重要,但之前的评估显示,在关键的经济评估问题上存在全国性的差异:支付意愿(WTP)阈值、多适应症药品的定价模型和参照物选择原则。本研究旨在为未来的 HTA 评估收集专家对这些问题的意见:方法:在全国范围内进行匿名网络调查,调查对象包括学术界、HTA、咨询公司/合同研究组织 (CRO)/行业、服务提供商和支付方的专家。2023 年,利用便利抽样和滚雪球抽样法,通过微信发布了包含问卷网络链接的通用邀请函。采用描述性统计分析了问卷意见的一致率。使用适当的逻辑模型研究了参与者的回答与人口统计学之间的关系:结果:共收到来自 34 个城市的 303 份专家回复。专家的主要观点包括:建议的基本 WTP 临界值为 GDP 的 0.5 至 1.5 倍(52.1% 同意);儿童疾病、罕见病、临终疾病和一流药品(FIC)的临界值提高(>78.0% 同意);多适应症药品采用单一定价模式(60.4% 同意);考虑将多种药品作为参照物(79.9% 同意);上市时间在三年以下的药品避免使用集中采购药品作为参照物(71.0% 同意)。作为服务提供者的参与者选择较高阈值的几率较低(OR:0.26;PC 结论:专家观点表明,中国目前的 HTA 方法需要进行重大变革,并强调需要增加对 HTA 流程和专业知识培养的投资。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Key Issues of Economic Evaluations for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Nationwide Expert Survey.

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly crucial in medicine price negotiations in China, yet previous appraisals revealed national discrepancies on key economic evaluation issues: willingness-to-pay threshold, pricing models for multi-indication medicines, and comparator selection principles. This study aimed to collect expert opinions on these issues for future HTA evaluations.

Methods: A nationwide anonymous web-based survey encompassing experts across academia, HTA, consultancy/contract research organization/industry, service provider, and payer. In 2023, a generic invitation containing a web link to the questionnaire was disseminated via WeChat using convenience and snowball sampling. Agreement rates for questionnaire views were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The relationship between participants' responses and demographics was examined using appropriate logistic models.

Results: A total of 303 responses were received from experts in 34 cities. Key expert views include a suggested base willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times gross domestic product (52.1% agreement); elevated thresholds for childhood diseases, rare diseases, end-of-life diseases, and first-in-class medicines (>78.0% agreement); a single pricing model for multi-indication medicines (60.4% agreement); consideration of multiple medicines as comparators (79.9% agreement); and avoiding the use of centrally procured medicines as comparators for medicines with a time to market of less than 3 years (71.0% agreement). Participants who are service provider had lower odds of selecting higher thresholds (odds ratio 0.26; P < .01) than responders from consultancy/contract research organization/industry.

Conclusions: Expert views indicate the need for substantial changes in China's current HTA methods, highlighting the need for increased investment in HTA processes and expertise cultivation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
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