IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/briefg/000237.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New Guidelines for Economic Evaluation in Germany and the United Kingdom: Are We Any Closer to Developing International Standards?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael F. Drummond;Frans Rutten

Abstract

Australia was the first, in 1993, to make economic evaluation an important component of its decisions about reimbursement of drugs. Since then, several jurisdictions have followed suit. Decision-making authorities (e.g., ministries of health or health technology assessment agencies) usually issue methodological guidelines for the conduct of studies of economic value. Similarities across countries in the sets of guidelines likely are greater than the differences, especially among those guidelines that have been developed in the context of formal decision-making procedures. Nevertheless, important differences do exist in key elements of methodology, such as the choice of comparator or how uncertainty is to be handled. This raises the issue of whether it is possible to develop international standards for economic evaluation in health care. This Briefing examines two recent sets of methodological guidance issued by agencies in two major European countries, NICE in the UK and IQWiG in Germany. It assesses whether analysts are moving closer to the development of international standards in economic evaluation and what it would take to achieve this aim.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael F. Drummond;Frans Rutten, 2008. "New Guidelines for Economic Evaluation in Germany and the United Kingdom: Are We Any Closer to Developing International Standards?," Briefing 000237, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:briefg:000237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/new-guidelines-economic-evaluation-germany-and-united-kingdom-are-we-any-closer/attachment-316-final-iqwig-briefing/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mathias Kifmann, 2010. "Indikationsspezifische Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung auf Grundlage eines sozialen Gesundheitsindexes," Discussion Paper Series 310, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    2. Mathias Kifmann & Sven Neelsen, 2010. "Germany's Struggle with Prices for Patent-protected Drugs," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 8(3), pages 43-52, October.
    3. Werner B. F. Brouwer & Frans F. H. Rutten, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1128-1131, October.
    4. repec:ces:ifodic:v:8:y:2010:i:3:p:14566949 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2010. "Sins of omission and obfuscation: IQWIG's guidelines on economic evaluation methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1132-1136, October.
    6. Mathias Kifmann & Sven Neelsen, 2010. "Germany's Struggle with Prices for Patent-protected Drugs," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 8(03), pages 43-52, October.
    7. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    8. Charalabosā€Markos Dintsios & Andreas Gerber, 2010. "Some essential clarifications: IQWiG comments on two critiques of the efficiency frontier approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1139-1141, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ohe:briefg:000237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.