A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England

Iyn-Hyang Lee, Karen Bloor and Eun-Young Bae ()
Additional contact information
Iyn-Hyang Lee: Yeungnam University
Karen Bloor: University of York
Eun-Young Bae: Gyeongsang National University

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2023, vol. 21, issue 2, No 14, 347-359

Abstract: Abstract Objectives This study aimed to compare appraisal decisions about anticancer drugs between the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Korea and England, and investigate whether the decisions and supporting evidence are comparable. Methods This study identified 49 anticancer drugs listed by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare between January 2014 and December 2019. Of those, 46 anticancer drugs for 58 indications were included for analysis. Official appraisal documents from both countries for 58 drug–indication pairs were compared and assessed in terms of clinical and economic evidence. Evidence items and their groups for analysis were predefined. Results Three-quarters of cases were recommended with managed entry agreements (MEAs) in England and three-fifths in Korea. Finance-based MEA types were most common in both countries. Korean and English authorities made consistent decisions in 48 cases (83%) when classifying decisions as ‘recommended’ and ‘not recommended’, while the degree of agreement lowered to 16 cases (28%) when subdividing decisions according to MEA types. When the evidence base was identical, their decisions were more likely to be consistent. Regarding clinical evidence, while the majority of cases referred to the same pivotal studies, differences between the committees’ recognized comparators and the appraisal date caused discrepancies in decisions. Economic evidence, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, was identical in only 12 cases (21%), which contributed to discrepancies. Conclusion England relies on economic evaluation, with increasing use of data collection agreements, in contrast with Korea’s new procedure exempting companies from providing economic evaluation. While there is possibility for international cooperation in the assessment of clinical evidence, transferability issues exist, particularly with regard to economic evidence.

Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00778-1 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00778-1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00778-1

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().