Cargando…

Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold

OBJECTIVES: In health technology assessment (HTA) agencies where cost-effectiveness plays a role in decision-making, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold is often used to inform reimbursement decisions. The acceptance of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold was assess...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffiths, Elizabeth A, Hendrich, Janek K, Stoddart, Samuel DR, Walsh, Sean CM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4564087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366099
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S87462
_version_ 1782389374816616448
author Griffiths, Elizabeth A
Hendrich, Janek K
Stoddart, Samuel DR
Walsh, Sean CM
author_facet Griffiths, Elizabeth A
Hendrich, Janek K
Stoddart, Samuel DR
Walsh, Sean CM
author_sort Griffiths, Elizabeth A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In health technology assessment (HTA) agencies where cost-effectiveness plays a role in decision-making, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold is often used to inform reimbursement decisions. The acceptance of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold was assessed across different agencies and across indications, in order to inform future reimbursement submissions. METHODS: All HTA appraisals from May 2000 to May 2014 from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) were assessed. Multiple technology appraisals, resubmissions, vaccination programs, and requests for advice were excluded. Submissions not reporting an ICER, or for which an ICER could not be determined were also excluded. The remaining appraisals were reviewed, and the submitted ICER, recommendation, and reasoning behind the recommendation were extracted. RESULTS: NICE recommended the highest proportion of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold (34% accepted without restrictions; 20% with restrictions), followed by PBAC (16% accepted without restrictions; 4% with restrictions), SMC (11% accepted without restrictions; 14% accepted with restrictions), and CADTH (0% accepted without restrictions; 26% with restrictions). Overall, the majority of higher-than-threshold ICER submissions were classified into the “malignant disease and immunosuppression” therapeutic category; however, there was no notable variation in acceptance rates by disease area. Reasons for accepting submissions reporting ICERs above the threshold included high clinical benefit over the standard of care, and addressing an unmet therapeutic need. CONCLUSION: Acceptance of submissions with higher-than-threshold ICERs varied by HTA agency and was not significantly influenced by disease category. Such submissions must be accompanied by robust, concrete, and transparent evidence in order to achieve patient access.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4564087
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45640872015-09-11 Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold Griffiths, Elizabeth A Hendrich, Janek K Stoddart, Samuel DR Walsh, Sean CM Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research OBJECTIVES: In health technology assessment (HTA) agencies where cost-effectiveness plays a role in decision-making, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold is often used to inform reimbursement decisions. The acceptance of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold was assessed across different agencies and across indications, in order to inform future reimbursement submissions. METHODS: All HTA appraisals from May 2000 to May 2014 from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) were assessed. Multiple technology appraisals, resubmissions, vaccination programs, and requests for advice were excluded. Submissions not reporting an ICER, or for which an ICER could not be determined were also excluded. The remaining appraisals were reviewed, and the submitted ICER, recommendation, and reasoning behind the recommendation were extracted. RESULTS: NICE recommended the highest proportion of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold (34% accepted without restrictions; 20% with restrictions), followed by PBAC (16% accepted without restrictions; 4% with restrictions), SMC (11% accepted without restrictions; 14% accepted with restrictions), and CADTH (0% accepted without restrictions; 26% with restrictions). Overall, the majority of higher-than-threshold ICER submissions were classified into the “malignant disease and immunosuppression” therapeutic category; however, there was no notable variation in acceptance rates by disease area. Reasons for accepting submissions reporting ICERs above the threshold included high clinical benefit over the standard of care, and addressing an unmet therapeutic need. CONCLUSION: Acceptance of submissions with higher-than-threshold ICERs varied by HTA agency and was not significantly influenced by disease category. Such submissions must be accompanied by robust, concrete, and transparent evidence in order to achieve patient access. Dove Medical Press 2015-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4564087/ /pubmed/26366099 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S87462 Text en © 2015 Griffiths et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Griffiths, Elizabeth A
Hendrich, Janek K
Stoddart, Samuel DR
Walsh, Sean CM
Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title_full Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title_fullStr Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title_full_unstemmed Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title_short Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
title_sort acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4564087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366099
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S87462
work_keys_str_mv AT griffithselizabetha acceptanceofhealthtechnologyassessmentsubmissionswithincrementalcosteffectivenessratiosabovethecosteffectivenessthreshold
AT hendrichjanekk acceptanceofhealthtechnologyassessmentsubmissionswithincrementalcosteffectivenessratiosabovethecosteffectivenessthreshold
AT stoddartsamueldr acceptanceofhealthtechnologyassessmentsubmissionswithincrementalcosteffectivenessratiosabovethecosteffectivenessthreshold
AT walshseancm acceptanceofhealthtechnologyassessmentsubmissionswithincrementalcosteffectivenessratiosabovethecosteffectivenessthreshold