The United States Food and Drug Administration, managed care organizations, third-party payers, and national healthcare systems are engaged in reviewing pharmacoeconomic submissions from drug companies. Despite recommendations by various advisory committees on methods for conducting economic evaluations, differences in opinions among the producers of pharmacoeconomic information still exist on the appropriateness of the recommendations scientifically, as well as their suitability for intended users. We review the current state of the market for pharmacoeconomic information as well as the key methodologic issues facing those performing such analyses.
While considerable progress has been made establishing rigorous methods for conducting economic evaluations, further progress can be made. This can be accomplished by convening the users and producers of this information. The goal of such a meeting would not be to develop a “one size fits all” standard but rather to maximize the scientific integrity of studies by providing broad technical guidance, modifications for different audiences, and applicability to a wide variety of healthcare interventions.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMCCost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
2.
ChapmanRHStonePWSandbergEAA comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of ‘panel-worthy’ studies. Med Decis Making.2000;20(4):451–467.
3.
KernickDPThe impact of health economics on healthcare delivery: A primary care perspective. Pharmacoeconomics.2000;18(4):311–315.
4.
HillmanALEconomic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med.1995;123(1):61–70.
5.
KassirerJPAngellMHThe journal's policy on cost effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med.1994;331(10):669–670.
6.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.ISPOR Health Policy Development. http://www.ispor.org/policy/sec114.htm (Accessed December 1, 1999).
7.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.Promotional Use of Health Care Economic Information—Recommended Approach for Implementing FDAMA Section 114.Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 1996.
8.
RoseJ.Regulating Cost Effectiveness Claims. Presentation at the Food and Drug Administration Conference, Comparing Treatments: Safety, Effectiveness, and Cost-Effectiveness, Bethesda, MD, March 24, 1995.
9.
NeumannPJZinnerDEPaltielADThe FDA and regulation of cost-effectiveness claims. Health Aff.1996;15(3):54–71.
10.
Health Care Financing Administration.Medicare Program: Criteria and procedures for making medical services coverage decisions that relate to health care technology. Federal Register.1989;54(18):4308.
11.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program Overview. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vfc/about.htm (Accessed October 26, 2000).
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Preventing Pneumococcal Disease among Infants and Children. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a.htm (Accessed November 2, 2000).
13.
LieuTARayGTBlackSBProjected cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of healthy infants and children. JAMA.2000;283(11):1460–1468.
14.
HaddixACCTeutschSMShafferPADunetDOPrevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation.New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
15.
LevineSCampenDMillaresMBarruetaA.Kaiser Permanente's prescription drug benefit: A look at how the HMO giant responds to unregulated market pricing of pharmaceuticals. Health Aff.2000;19(2):185–190.
16.
Maine Department of Human Services.Department of Human Services Unveils Bill to Reduce Prescription Drug Costs for Maine Residents.http://www.janus.stae.me.us/dhs/pressn.htm (Accessed November 2, 2000).
17.
TonerR.Maine at front line in fight over the high cost of drugs. The New York Times. May 11, 2002:A1.
18.
RosenbaumDEExpansion of medical benefits puts Vermont in the vanguard. The New York Times. June 19, 2000:A12.
19.
PearR.US backs Florida plan to cut drug costs. The New York Times. September 19, 2001:A14.
20.
LuceBRBrownREThe use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.1995;11(1):79–92.
21.
ShornickJFFormulary decisions: Drug therapy policy at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Drug Benefit Trends.1997;9:23–24, 42.
22.
LangleyPCFormulary submission guidelines for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada: Structure, application and manufacturer responsibilities. Pharmacoeconomics.1999;16(3):211–224.
23.
MatherDBSullivanSDAugensteinDIncorporating clinical outcomes and economic consequences into drug formulary decisions: A practical approach. Am J Managed Care.1999;5(3):277–285.
24.
SarpongDFApplication of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in formulary decision making. Drug Benefit Trends.1999;11:53–57.
25.
GriacarJALangleyPCLuceBAMACP Format for Formulary Submissions.Alexandria, VA: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. http://www.amcp.org/public/formulary/sub (Accessed December 5, 2000).
26.
LangleyPCMartinREGuidelines for Formulary Submissions.Rancho Cordova, CA: Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation; 1996.
27.
FreudenheimM.Group seeks to counteract drug-makers. The New York Times. June 30, 2000:C1.
28.
Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health.Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
29.
Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment.Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada.Second edition. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment; 1997.
30.
Haim-NemersonM.Country Support: Vioxx™ Example. Presented at Merck's Outcomes Research Seminar, Gwynned, PA, June 28, 2000.
31.
PritchardC.Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Decision Spectrum: Reimbursement, Pharmacoeconomics, and Disease ManagementWaltham, MA: Decision Resources; 2001:5–1 to 5–12.
32.
HjelgrenJBerggrenFAnderssonF.Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health.2001;4(3):225–250.
33.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Appraisal of New and Existing Technologies: Interim Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors.http://www.nice.org/uk/apprasals/apr_guide.htm (Accessed August 16, 1999).
34.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Health Technology Assessment: Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors.London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2001.
35.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.Pharmacoeconomics: Identifying the Issues, Advisory Panel Reports.http://ispor.org/workpaper/adpanel/index.html (Accessed July 11, 2000).
36.
RussellLBFrybackDGSonnenbergFAIs the societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis useful for decision makers?Jt Comm J Qual Improv.1999;25(9):447–454.
37.
BergerMLThe once and future application of cost-effectiveness analysis. Jt Comm J Qual Improv.1999;25(9):455–464.
38.
HillSRMitchellASHenryDAProblems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme. JAMA.2000;283(16):2116–2121.
39.
MessoriATrippoliSDaealessandroPProblems in pharmacoeconomic analyses. JAMA.2000;284(15): 1922.
40.
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.A Brief History of ICH.http://www/ifpma.org/ich8.html (Accessed October 19, 2000).
41.
HubbardT.International Conference on Harmonisation: Guidance on general considerations for clinical trials. Federal Register, 1997;62(242):66113–66119.
42.
BoyleMHTorranceGWSinclairJCHorwoodSPEconomic evaluation of very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med.1983;308(22):1330–1337.
43.
Mohle-BoetaniJCSchuchatAPlikaytisBDComparison of prevention strategies for neonatal group b streptococcal infection: A population-based economic analysis. JAMA.1993;270(12):1442–1448.
44.
LieuTRCochiSLBlackSBCost-effectiveness of a routine varicella vaccination program for US children. JAMA.1994;271(5):375–381.
45.
Mohle-BoetaniJCMillerBHalpernMSchool-based screening for tuberculosis infection: A cost-benefit analysis. JAMA.1995;274(8):613–619.
46.
MillerMASutterRWStrebelPMHadlerSCCost-effectiveness of incorporating inactivated poliovirus vaccine into the routine childhood immunization schedule. JAMA.1996;276(12):967–971.
47.
JohannessonMJonnsonBKjekshusJCost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med.1997;336(5):332–336.
48.
MurrayCJLEvansDBAchayaraABaltussenRMPMDevelopment of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics.2000;9:235–251.
49.
StinnetAAMullahyJ.Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making.1998;18(Suppl.):S68–S90.
