National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

Deepshikha Sharma, Arun Kumar Aggarwal, Laura E. Downey and Shankar Prinja ()
Additional contact information
Deepshikha Sharma: Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
Arun Kumar Aggarwal: Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
Laura E. Downey: Imperial College
Shankar Prinja: Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2021, vol. 5, issue 3, No 2, 349-364

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objectives Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines. Methodology A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken. Results Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely. Conclusion Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00250-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().