• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

法国国家卫生管理局

National Authority for Health: France.

作者信息

Rochaix Lise, Xerri Bertrand

机构信息

Economic and Public Health Specialized Committee, Haute Autorité de Santé.

出版信息

Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;58:1-9.

PMID:19639712
Abstract

The French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé, or HAS) was established to assist France's public institutions in optimizing the basket of reimbursable goods and services and to help health care professionals continuously improve their clinical practice by defining best-care standards and identifying relevant tools and methods. HAS carries out single technology assessment (STA) and multiple technology assessment (MTA), assessing both the intrinsic benefit of the new technology and its effectiveness compared with that of existing technologies. A new treatment may not be covered unless it provides either improved benefit or lower cost, and STA is mandatory before a new drug, device, or medical procedure can be added to the benefit list for sickness funds. While HAS recommendations are advisory, the decision-making bodies (the Ministry of Health or the union of sickness funds) accept its findings in most cases.

摘要

法国国家卫生管理局(法语:Haute Autorité de Santé,简称HAS)的设立旨在协助法国公共机构优化可报销商品和服务清单,并通过界定最佳医疗标准以及识别相关工具和方法,帮助医疗保健专业人员持续改进其临床实践。HAS开展单一技术评估(STA)和多重技术评估(MTA),既评估新技术的内在益处,也评估其与现有技术相比的有效性。除非新疗法能带来更高益处或更低成本,否则不予报销,并且在新药、新设备或新医疗程序被纳入疾病基金福利清单之前,STA是强制性要求。虽然HAS的建议仅供参考,但决策机构(卫生部或疾病基金联盟)在大多数情况下会接受其评估结果。

相似文献

1
National Authority for Health: France.法国国家卫生管理局
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;58:1-9.
2
Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.澳大利亚药品福利计划中的循证决策。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;60:1-13.
3
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany.德国医疗质量与效率研究所
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;57:1-12.
4
How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.成本效益分析应如何用于卫生技术覆盖决策?来自英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所方法的证据。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):73-9. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279521.
5
Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所开展的比较效果评估
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;59:1-12.
6
Role of technology assessment in health benefits coverage for medical devices.技术评估在医疗设备健康效益覆盖中的作用。
Am J Manag Care. 1998 Sep 25;4 Spec No:SP139-50.
7
NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process.国家卫生与临床优化研究所将成本效益用作审议过程的一个范例。
Health Econ Policy Law. 2006 Jul;1(Pt 3):299-318. doi: 10.1017/S1744133106004026.
8
Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making.报销决策中卫生技术评估证据要求的协调统一。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):511-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080677.
9
Coverage with Evidence Development: applications and issues.有证据开发的保险覆盖:应用和问题。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jan;26(1):79-85. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990882.
10
[Experiences with and impact of health technology assessment on the German Standing Committee of physicians and patients].[卫生技术评估对德国医师与患者常设委员会的影响及相关经验]
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2002 Feb;96(2):82-90.

引用本文的文献

1
Health insurance benefit package in Iran: a qualitative policy process analysis.伊朗的健康保险福利套餐:一项定性政策过程分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Aug 6;20(1):722. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05592-w.
2
Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review.探索患者和家属在孤儿药生命周期中的参与:范围综述。
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Dec 22;12(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0738-6.
3
Involving patients in reducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs: a rare opportunity?
让患者参与减少围绕孤儿药和超孤儿药的决策不确定性:一个难得的机会?
Patient. 2015 Feb;8(1):29-39. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0106-8.
4
Funding decisions for newborn screening: a comparative review of 22 decision processes in Europe.新生儿筛查的资金决策:对欧洲 22 个决策过程的比较评估。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 May 19;11(5):5403-30. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110505403.
5
A systematic review of cost-sharing strategies used within publicly-funded drug plans in member countries of the organisation for economic co-operation and development.对经济合作与发展组织成员国公共资助药品计划中使用的费用分担策略的系统评价。
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 11;9(3):e90434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090434. eCollection 2014.
6
Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.集中审查程序在欧洲新医疗技术报销决策中的作用。
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117-86. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S14407. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
7
Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different.全球卫生技术资金决策过程:大同小异。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Jun;29(6):475-95. doi: 10.2165/11586420-000000000-00000.