Towse Adrian, Barnsley Paul
Office of Health Economics.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):360-4. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000524.
Two general alternative approaches, cost-effectiveness analysis and the therapeutic added value approach, link the pricing and approval of drugs to value. Value as assessed by payers is a function of: benefit less cost, willingness to pay for benefit, and how they handle uncertainty.
This study uses international examples to explore the elements of value that can be included in the assessment of health technologies, approaches to scoring the elements of value and how they can be combined to make a decision.
A range of value elements, measures, and approaches to aggregation are identified across different HTA systems. We show that seemingly arbitrary differences in measurement and aggregation can lead to significantly different outcomes, and argue that the choice of values, measures, and decision-making processes should be informed by the societal values that underpin a health system.
We identify three areas for further research to improve both health system and industry R&D decision making: (i) whether more consistency could be achieved across health systems on the elements of value that matter; (ii) the relative merits of discrete versus continuous measures of value; and (iii) how structured decision making (to aggregate the elements of value) could or should become.
两种常见的替代方法,即成本效益分析和治疗附加值方法,将药物的定价与审批和价值联系起来。支付方评估的价值是以下因素的函数:效益减去成本、为效益支付的意愿以及他们处理不确定性的方式。
本研究使用国际案例来探讨可纳入卫生技术评估的价值要素、对价值要素进行评分的方法以及如何将这些要素结合起来以做出决策。
在不同的卫生技术评估系统中识别出一系列价值要素、衡量指标和汇总方法。我们表明,衡量和汇总方面看似随意的差异可能导致显著不同的结果,并认为价值、衡量指标和决策过程的选择应以支撑卫生系统的社会价值为依据。
我们确定了三个需要进一步研究的领域,以改善卫生系统和行业研发决策:(i)不同卫生系统在重要价值要素上是否可以实现更高的一致性;(ii)离散型与连续型价值衡量指标的相对优点;(iii)结构化决策(汇总价值要素)可以或应该如何实现。