Health-state utility estimates for health technology assessment : a review of the manufacturers' submissions to the French National Authority for Health
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to review the selection and methods used for deriving health state utility (HSU) estimates included in the cost-utility analyses (CUA) submitted by manufacturers to the National Authority for Health (HAS) during the first 2 years after the introduction of the economic evaluation for price setting in France.
METHODS: We reviewed all manufacturers' submissions that included a CUA and were assessed by HAS by the end of October 2015 (N = 34). We reviewed the identification, selection, and methods used to estimate HSU and compared them with those recommended by HAS.
RESULTS: A literature review to identify HSU was reported in only 13 (38%) submissions. The instruments for describing HSU were a preference-based generic instrument in 20 (59%) submissions; vignettes in five (15%); a condition-specific instrument in three (9%); and a combination of instruments in six (18%). The valuation perspective was the general population in 26 (76%) submissions; in only nine (26%) submissions, the valuation set was derived from the French general population.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous concerns in the selection, valuation and use of HSU, as well as a frequent lack of clarity in the methods used. Most submissions (79%) included HSU that did not meet HAS recommendations.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2017 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:17 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research - 17(2017), 5 vom: 08. Okt., Seite 489-494 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Hamers, Françoise F [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Economic evaluation |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 10.10.2017 Date Revised 10.10.2017 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1080/14737167.2017.1289088 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM268447632 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM268447632 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224222651.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/14737167.2017.1289088 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0894.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM268447632 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)28133977 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hamers, Françoise F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Health-state utility estimates for health technology assessment |b a review of the manufacturers' submissions to the French National Authority for Health |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 10.10.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 10.10.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Our aim was to review the selection and methods used for deriving health state utility (HSU) estimates included in the cost-utility analyses (CUA) submitted by manufacturers to the National Authority for Health (HAS) during the first 2 years after the introduction of the economic evaluation for price setting in France | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We reviewed all manufacturers' submissions that included a CUA and were assessed by HAS by the end of October 2015 (N = 34). We reviewed the identification, selection, and methods used to estimate HSU and compared them with those recommended by HAS | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: A literature review to identify HSU was reported in only 13 (38%) submissions. The instruments for describing HSU were a preference-based generic instrument in 20 (59%) submissions; vignettes in five (15%); a condition-specific instrument in three (9%); and a combination of instruments in six (18%). The valuation perspective was the general population in 26 (76%) submissions; in only nine (26%) submissions, the valuation set was derived from the French general population | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous concerns in the selection, valuation and use of HSU, as well as a frequent lack of clarity in the methods used. Most submissions (79%) included HSU that did not meet HAS recommendations | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Economic evaluation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a France | |
| 650 | 4 | |a health-related quality of life | |
| 650 | 4 | |a health-state utility | |
| 650 | 4 | |a quality-adjusted life-years | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ghabri, Salah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Le Gales, Catherine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research |d 2001 |g 17(2017), 5 vom: 08. Okt., Seite 489-494 |w (DE-627)NLM187860815 |x 1744-8379 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:17 |g year:2017 |g number:5 |g day:08 |g month:10 |g pages:489-494 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1289088 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 17 |j 2017 |e 5 |b 08 |c 10 |h 489-494 | ||