Search results

Economic evidence is influential in health technology assessment world-wide. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) can enable economists to include economic information on health care provision. Application of economic evidence in CPGs, and its integration into clinical practice and national decision making is hampered by objections from professions, paucity of economic evidence or lack of policy commitment. The use of state-of-art economic methodologies will improve this. Economic evidence can be graded by 'checklists' to establish the best evidence for decision making given methodological rigor. New economic evaluation checklists, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) and other decision criteria enable health economists to impact on decision making world-wide. We analyse the methodologies for integrating economic evidence into CPG agencies globally, including the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the USA, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian political reforms. The Guidelines and Economists Network International (GENI) Board members from Australia, UK, Canada and Denmark presented the findings at the conference of the International Health Economists Association (IHEA) and we report conclusions and developments since. The Consolidated Guidelines for the Reporting of Economic Evaluations (CHEERS) 24 item check list can be used by AHRQ, NHMRC, other CPG and health organisations, in conjunction with the Drummond ten-point check list and a questionnaire that scores that checklist for grading studies, when assessing economic evidence. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) thresholds, opportunity cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) are crucial issues for decision rules in CEA generally, including end-of-life therapies. Limitations of inter-rater reliability in checklists can be addressed by including more than one assessor to reach a consensus, especially when impacting on treatment decisions. We identify priority areas to generate economic evidence for CPGs by NHMRC, AHRQ, and other agencies. The evidence may cover demand for care issues such as involved time, logistics, innovation price, price sensitivity, substitutes and complements, WTP, absenteeism and presentism. Supply issues may include economies of scale, efficiency changes, and return on investment. Involved equity and efficiency measures may include cost-of-illness, disease burden, quality-of-life, budget impact, cost-effective ratios, net benefits and disparities in access and outcomes. Priority setting remains essential and trade-off decisions between policy criteria can be based on MCDA, both in evidence based clinical medicine and in health planning.

Economic evidence is influential in health technology assessment world-wide. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) can enable economists to include economic information on health care provision. Application of economic evidence in CPGs, and its integration into clinical practice and national decision making is hampered by objections from professions, paucity of economic evidence or lack of policy commitment. The use of state-of-art economic methodologies will improve this. Economic evidence can be graded by 'checklists' to establish the best evidence for decision making given methodological rigor. New economic evaluation checklists, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) and other decision criteria enable health economists to impact on decision making world-wide. We analyse the methodologies for integrating economic evidence into CPG agencies globally, including the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the USA, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian political reforms. The Guidelines and Economists Network International (GENI) Board members from Australia, UK, Canada and Denmark presented the findings at the conference of the International Health Economists Association (IHEA) and we report conclusions and developments since. The Consolidated Guidelines for the Reporting of Economic Evaluations (CHEERS) 24 item check list can be used by AHRQ, NHMRC, other CPG and health organisations, in conjunction with the Drummond ten-point check list and a questionnaire that scores that checklist for grading studies, when assessing economic evidence. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) thresholds, opportunity cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) are crucial issues for decision rules in CEA generally, including end-of-life therapies. Limitations of inter-rater reliability in checklists can be addressed by including more than one assessor to reach a consensus, especially when impacting on treatment decisions. We identify priority areas to generate economic evidence for CPGs by NHMRC, AHRQ, and other agencies. The evidence may cover demand for care issues such as involved time, logistics, innovation price, price sensitivity, substitutes and complements, WTP, absenteeism and presentism. Supply issues may include economies of scale, efficiency changes, and return on investment. Involved equity and efficiency measures may include cost-of-illness, disease burden, quality-of-life, budget impact, cost-effective ratios, net benefits and disparities in access and outcomes. Priority setting remains essential and trade-off decisions between policy criteria can be based on MCDA, both in evidence based clinical medicine and in health planning.

Q1 ; Q1 ; 739-749 ; Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to inform health technology assessments for resource allocation,which are valuable tools for emerging economies such as in America. Nevertheless, the characteristics and uses in SouthAmerica are unknown.Objectives:To identify sources, characteristics, and uses of RWE in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, and evaluate thecontext-specific challenges. The implications for future regulation and responsible management of RWE in the region are alsoconsidered.Methods:A systematic literature review, database mapping, and targeted gray literature search were conducted to identify thesources and characteristics of RWE. Findings were validated by key opinion leaders attending workshops in 4 South Americancountries.Results:A database mapping exercise revealed 407 unique databases. Geographic scope, database type, population, andoutcomes captured were reported. Characteristics of national health information systems show efforts to collect interoper-able data from service providers, insurers, and government agencies, but that initiatives are hampered by fragmentation, lackof stewardship, and resources. In South America, RWE is mainly used for pharmacovigilance and as pure academic research,but less so for health technology assessment decision making or pricing negotiations and not at all to inform early accessschemes.Conclusions:The quality of real-world data in the case study countries vary and RWE is not consistently used in healthcaredecision making. Authors recommend that future studies monitor the impact of digitalization and the potential effects ofaccess to RWE on the quality of patient care.

Q1 ; Q1 ; 739-749 ; Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to inform health technology assessments for resource allocation, which are valuable tools for emerging economies such as in America. Nevertheless, the characteristics and uses in South America are unknown. Objectives: To identify sources, characteristics, and uses of RWE in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, and evaluate the context-specific challenges. The implications for future regulation and responsible management of RWE in the region are also considered. Methods: A systematic literature review, database mapping, and targeted gray literature search were conducted to identify the sources and characteristics of RWE. Findings were validated by key opinion leaders attending workshops in 4 South American countries. Results: A database mapping exercise revealed 407 unique databases. Geographic scope, database type, population, and outcomes captured were reported. Characteristics of national health information systems show efforts to collect interoperable data from service providers, insurers, and government agencies, but that initiatives are hampered by fragmentation, lack of stewardship, and resources. In South America, RWE is mainly used for pharmacovigilance and as pure academic research, but less so for health technology assessment decision making or pricing negotiations and not at all to inform early access schemes. Conclusions: The quality of real-world data in the case study countries vary and RWE is not consistently used in healthcare decision making. Authors recommend that future studies monitor the impact of digitalization and the potential effects of access to RWE on the quality of patient care.