Abstract
Abstract
Background
The question of how to set the cost-effectiveness threshold for new, innovative medicines is a matter of ongoing controversy. One prominent proposal suggests that the cost-effectiveness threshold adopted by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) should represent the opportunity cost for the U.K. National Health Service resulting from the adoption of new medicines. The purpose of this article is to compare this proposal for the U.K. with the approach chosen by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in Germany, which relies on indication-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds.
Main text
The ‘ideal’ NICE and IQWiG surprisingly share the fundamental principle of inferring the willingness to pay from existing care. For this and other reasons, indication-specific thresholds based on IQWiG’s methodology do not lead to more inefficiency at the health system’s level than a generic threshold based on the ‘ideal’ NICE (keeping other conditions the same). Also, applying either decision rule to one country will yield a similar long-term growth in population spending. Assuming that everything else is equal, both decision rules are predicted to decrease long-term expenditure growth. Convergence of the two decision rules would require, among others, ruling out waste in the ‘ideal’ NICE’s approach and, for IQWiG’s approach, using the same relative weights for life expectancy and health-related quality of life as the quality-adjusted-life-year model.
Conclusion
This article shows that both decision rules have notable commonalities in terms of inferring the willingness to pay from existing care and the projected impact on long-term growth in population spending.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Gerber A, Stock S, Dintsios CM. Reflections on the changing face of German pharmaceutical policy: how far is Germany from value-based pricing? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Jul;29(7):549–53.
2. Paris V, Belloni A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63: OECD Publishing; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k43jc9v6knx-en (accessed on January 23, 2019).
3. World Health Organization. Access to new medicines in Europe: technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research: World Health Organization; 2015.
4. Bouvy J, Vogler S. Pricing and reimbursement policies: impacts on innovation. In: Kaplan W, Wirtz V, Mantel Teuwisse A, Laing R, editors. Priority medicines for Europe and the world-2013 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
Cited by
26 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献