Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation in Ireland A Review of the Process

被引:15
作者
Tilson, Lesley [1 ]
O'Leary, Aisling [1 ]
Usher, Cara [1 ]
Barry, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] St James Hosp, Natl Ctr Pharmacoecon, Dublin 8, Ireland
关键词
BUDGET-IMPACT ANALYSES;
D O I
10.2165/11318790-000000000-00000
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objective: To describe the pharmacoeconomic assessment process in Ireland and to provide examples of recent appraisals and the subsequent impact on pricing and reimbursement decisions. Method: The pharmacoeconomic appraisals conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) between September 2006 and February 2009 were reviewed. The NCPE recommendations and subsequent reimbursement decisions by the Health Service Executive (HSE) were recorded. Recommendations made by the NCPE were compared with those of UK agencies. The duration of the NCPE pharmacoeconomic process and the time from marketing authorization to reimbursement was estimated. The budget impact assessments from the pharmaceutical companies were reviewed and compared for consistency. Results: The NCPE conducted 12 single technology appraisals during the study period. Eight of the medicines assessed were either recommended as a cost-effective use of resources or recommended with certain restrictions, and were funded by the HSE. Of the four medicines that were not considered cost effective, two were reimbursed after a price reduction was negotiated and the remaining two were not. The NCPE recommendations concurred with those of the UK agencies for the majority of appraisals, with the exception of sunitinib and lapatinib. The average duration of the NCPE process was 2.7 months. The average time from marketing authorization to reimbursement was 7 months. The review of budget impact assessments highlighted a high degree of variability between submissions. Conclusions: The findings of this review highlight the efficiency of the pharmacoeconomic process and the acceptance of the NCPE recommendations by the HSE for pricing and reimbursement decisions. NCPE recommendations broadly concurred with those of UK agencies for the majority of appraisals.
引用
收藏
页码:307 / 322
页数:16
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], CENS 2006
  • [2] Barry M, 2008, Ir Med J, V101, P299
  • [3] BARRY M, 2007, EXPERT REV PHARMACOE, V76, P605
  • [4] Barry Michael, 2002, Ir Med J, V95, P133
  • [5] *DEP HLTH CHILDR, EC DRUG US IR HEALTH
  • [6] Drummond MF, 2005, METHODS EC EVALUATIO, P27
  • [7] Nasty or Nice? A Perspective on the Use of Health Technology Assessment in the United Kingdom
    Drummond, Michael
    Sorenson, Corinna
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 : S8 - S13
  • [8] *HLTH INF QUAL AUT, 2008, HLTH TECHN ASS ROL H
  • [9] Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada
    Marshall, Deborah A.
    Douglas, Patrick R.
    Drummond, Michael F.
    Torrance, George W.
    MacLeod, Stuart
    Manti, Orlando
    Cheruvu, Lokanadha
    Corvari, Ron
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2008, 26 (06) : 477 - 495
  • [10] Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: Report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices - budget impact analysis
    Mauskopf, Josephine A.
    Sullivan, Sean D.
    Annemans, Lieven
    Caro, Jaime
    Mullins, C. Daniel
    Nuijten, Mark
    Orlewska, Ewa
    Watkins, John
    Trueman, Paul
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 (05) : 336 - 347