Incorporating Cost-Effectiveness Data in a Fair Process for Priority Setting Efforts; Comment on “Use of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness data is useful for use in priority setting decisions in order to improve the efficiency of resources used. This paper thereby responds to Eckard et al. which addressed the use of cost-effectiveness data in the actual prioritization decisions in the Swedish national clinical guidelines for heart diseases. Based on a set of experiences on the use of economic evaluation in priority setting processes, this paper emphasizes the potential approach to incorporating cost-effectiveness data in the prioritization process to enhance transparency of the decisions, and highlights the importance of designing a fair decision-making process that can enforce the sustained implementation of cost-effectiveness data.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Chisholm D, Evans D. World Health Report: Improving health system efficiency as a means of moving towards universal coverage. Geneva:  World Health Organization; 2010.
  2. Drummond M. Evaluation of health technology: economic issues for health policy and policy issues for economic appraisal. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 1593-600. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90059-0
  3. Eckard N, Janzon M, Levin LA. Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden. Int J Health Policy Manag 2014; 3: 323-32. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.105
  4. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S. A difficult balancing act: policy actors' perspectives on using economic evaluation to inform health-care coverage decisions under the universal health insurance coverage scheme in Thailand. Value Health 2008; 11: S52-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00367.x
  5. Tantivess S, Teerawattananon Y, Mills A. Strengthening cost-effectiveness analysis in Thailand through the establishment of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 931-45. doi: 10.2165/11314710-000000000-00000
  6. Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP, Teutsch SM, Helfand M, Mandelblatt JS. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20: 36-43. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00260-4
  7. Ramsey SD. Economic analyses and clinical practice guidelines: Why not a match made in heaven? J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 235-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.20110.x
  8. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2006. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.945156
  9. Youngkong S. Multi-criteria decision analysis for priority setting of health interventions in Thailand [PhD thesis]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University; 2012.
  10. Haller MC, Vanholder R, Oberbauer R, Zoccali C, Biesen WV. Health economics and European renal best practice - is it time to bring health economics into evidence-based guideline production in Europe? Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2014; 29: 1994-7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft369
  11. Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, Faden R, Teerawattananon Y. Social values and health policy: a new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag 2012; 26: 285-92. doi: 10.1108/14777261211238945
  12. Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag 2012; 26: 293-316. doi: 10.1108/14777261211238954
  13. Tantivess S, Velasco RP, Yothasamut J, Mohara A, Limprayoonyong H, Teerawatananon Y. Efficiency or Equity: Value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand. J Health Organ Manag 2012; 26: 331-42.
  14. Mohara A, Youngkong S, Velasco RP, Pachanee K, Prakongsai P, Tantivess S, et al. Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1: 1-10. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.10
  15. Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew P. [The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2014; 108: 397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.06.017
  16. Daniels N. Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
  17. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multi-criteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health 2012; 15: 961-70.
  18. Boivin A, Currie K, Fervers B, Gracia J, James M, Marshall C, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: 1-4. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.034835
  19. Légaré F, Boivin A, Gagnon S, Robitaille H. Patient and public involvement in the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: what do developers say? The International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 2012; 2: 862-9.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 February 2015
  • Revise Date: 07 April 2015
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2015
  • First Publish Date: 01 July 2015

Share

How to cite

Statistics