IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i3p285-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Monika Wagner
  • Hanane Khoury
  • Jacob Willet
  • Donna Rindress
  • Mireille Goetghebeur

Abstract

The adapted framework measures value in its widest sense, while being responsive to rare disease issues and policies. It provides an operationalizable platform to integrate values, competing ethical dilemmas, and uncertainty in appraising healthcare interventions. Copyright The Author(s) 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Jacob Willet & Donna Rindress & Mireille Goetghebeur, 2016. "Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:3:p:285-301
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5?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. Javier Orofino & Javier Soto & Miguel Casado & Itziar Oyagüez, 2010. "Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(5), pages 301-315, September.
    2. Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Stefanowska, Patricia & Hurley, Jeremiah, 2011. "A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 405-433, July.
    3. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    2. Belousova, Olga A. & Groen, Aard J. & Ouendag, Aniek M., 2020. "Opportunities and barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship in orphan drug development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Nicod, Elena & Annemans, Lieven & Bucsics, Anna & Lee, Anne & Upadhyaya, Sheela & Facey, Karen, 2019. "HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 140-151.

    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. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    2. Nicod, Elena & Annemans, Lieven & Bucsics, Anna & Lee, Anne & Upadhyaya, Sheela & Facey, Karen, 2019. "HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 140-151.
    3. Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Jacob Willet & Donna Rindress & Mireille Goetghebeur, 2016. "Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301, March.
    4. Johanna Wiss & Lars-Ake Levin & David Andersson & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 567-576, July.
    5. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    6. Robertson-Preidler, Joelle & Anstey, Matthew & Biller-Andorno, Nikola & Norrish, Alexandra, 2017. "Approaches to appropriate care delivery from a policy perspective: A case study of Australia, England and Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 770-777.
    7. Desser, Arna S., 2013. "Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: A survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-62.
    8. Eline Picavet & Marc Dooms & David Cassiman & Steven Simoens, 2011. "Drugs for rare diseases: Influence of orphan designation status on price," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 275-279, July.
    9. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    10. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    11. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    12. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.
    14. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    15. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    16. Li, Zili & Washington, Simon P. & Zheng, Zuduo & Prato, Carlo G., 2023. "A Bayesian hierarchical approach to the joint modelling of Revealed and stated choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    17. Mike Paulden & Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Christopher McCabe, 2015. "Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 255-269, March.
    18. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    19. Oehlmann, Malte & Glenk, Klaus & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2021. "Quantifying landscape externalities of renewable energy development: Implications of attribute cut-offs in choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.

    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:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:3:p:285-301. 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.