IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v9y2011i2p65-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Germany’s decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Afschin Gandjour

Abstract

In Germany, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) makes recommendations for ceiling prices of drugs based on an evaluation of the relationship between costs and effectiveness. To set ceiling prices, IQWiG uses the following decision rule: the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a new drug compared with the next effective intervention should not be higher than that of the next effective intervention compared with its comparator. The purpose of this article is to analyse ethical implications of IQWiG’s rule and compare them with those of two alternative decision rules, one that is based on an absolute cost-effectiveness threshold and one that falls in between. To this end, constrained optimization problems are defined that yield each decision rule. This article shows that IQWiG’s rule accounts for severity of disease and past resource consumption. Potential problems and pitfalls are discussed. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Afschin Gandjour, 2011. "Germany’s decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 65-71, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:65-71
    DOI: 10.2165/11586640-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11586640-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11586640-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1992. "Cost effectiveness/utility analyses : Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-296, October.
    2. David Dranove & Daniel Kessler & Mark McClellan & Mark Satterthwaite, 2003. "Is More Information Better? The Effects of "Report Cards" on Health Care Providers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 555-588, June.
    3. Weinstein, Milton & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1973. "Critical ratios and efficient allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 147-157, April.
    4. Barro, Jason R. & Huckman, Robert S. & Kessler, Daniel P., 2006. "The effects of cardiac specialty hospitals on the cost and quality of medical care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 702-721, July.
    5. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krucien, Nicolas & Heidenreich, Sebastian & Gafni, Amiram & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2020. "Measuring public preferences in France for potential consequences stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Siverskog, Jonathan & Henriksson, Martin, 2022. "The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    3. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    4. Suhui Li & Avi Dor, 2013. "How Do Hospitals Respond to Market Entry? Evidence from A Deregulated Market for Cardiac Revascularization," NBER Working Papers 18926, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    6. Morton, Alec, 2014. "Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-173.
    7. Hultkrantz, Lars & Svensson, Mikael, 2012. "A Comparison of Benefit Cost and Cost Utility Analysis in Practice: Divergent Policies in Sweden," Working Papers 2012:5, Örebro University, School of Business.
    8. Amiram Gafni & Stephen Walter & Stephen Birch, 2013. "Uncertainty And The Decision Maker: Assessing And Managing The Risk Of Undesirable Outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(11), pages 1287-1294, November.
    9. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    10. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    11. Stinnett, Aaron A. & Paltiel, A. David, 1996. "Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 641-653, October.
    12. Culyer, Anthony J., 2016. "Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care: a bookshelf guide to their meaning and use," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 415-432, October.
    13. Al, Maiwenn J. & Feenstra, Talitha & Brouwer, Werner B. F., 2004. "Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 33-48, October.
    14. P. Sendi & A. Gafni & S. Birch, 2002. "Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 23-31, January.
    15. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    16. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    17. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    18. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis. Authors' reply," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 653-654, October.
    19. Elamin H. Elbasha & Mark L. Messonnier, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 21-35, January.
    20. Afschin Gandjour & Amiram Gafni, 2013. "Internal validation of models with several interventions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 901-909, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:65-71. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.