Hill Suzanne, Freemantle Nick
Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, Faculty of Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle, Australia.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(11):761-7. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200321110-00001.
Healthcare decision makers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly using techniques of economic evaluation, particularly modelling, to assist them in their decisions about drug purchasing and drug development. The use of models in other types of policy decisions is also well established. One option, to shorten the time to a purchasing decision, would be for an interim decision for approval for reimbursement to be based on an economic model. Such a system would mainly benefit the drug development process and thus the pharmaceutical industry; however the approach could also lead to poor decision making, unethical marketing and withdrawal of drugs from the consumer. In this article, we consider the option of a two-stage economic appraisal process from the point of view of the seller, the purchaser and the patient and public. Although a two-stage process may offer some advantages in terms of early return on investment and access, there are significant disadvantages in terms of certainty about effects and public policy and expenditure. Until there are better methods of predicting the effectiveness of a new product, it is unlikely that interim decisions can be seen as a reasonable health policy alternative, although it seems likely that industry may continue to lobby for such an approach.
医疗保健决策者和制药公司越来越多地使用经济评估技术,尤其是建模,来协助他们做出有关药品采购和药物研发的决策。模型在其他类型的政策决策中的应用也已确立。一种缩短做出采购决策时间的选择是,基于经济模型做出报销批准的临时决策。这样的系统主要会使药物研发过程受益,进而使制药行业受益;然而,这种方法也可能导致决策不当、不道德营销以及药物从消费者市场撤出。在本文中,我们从卖方、买方以及患者和公众的角度考虑两阶段经济评估过程这一选择。尽管两阶段过程在投资回报和可及性方面可能具有一些优势,但在效果确定性、公共政策和支出方面存在重大劣势。在有更好的预测新产品有效性的方法之前,临时决策不太可能被视为合理的卫生政策选择,尽管行业似乎可能会继续游说采用这种方法。