International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

The Potential for Early Health Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-Making; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors
Hansoo Kim 1
Stephen Goodall 2
Danny Liew 1
1 School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
2 Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
10.15171/ijhpm.2020.17
Abstract
Grutters et al recently investigated the role of early health economic modelling of health technologies by undertaking a secondary analysis of health economic modelling assessments performed by their group. Our commentary offers a broad perspective on the potential utility of early health economic modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and decision-making around reimbursement of new health technologies. Further we provide several examples to compliment Grutters and colleagues’ observations.
Keywords
Early Assessment
Health Economic Modelling
Reimbursement
Health Technology Assessment
Australia
  1. Grutters JPC, Govers T, Nijboer J, Tummers M, van der Wilt GJ, Rovers MM. Problems and promises of health technologies: the role of early health economic modeling. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(10):575-582. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.36
  2. Sarnes E, Cadarette SM, Sawchyn B, et al. A Comparison of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Requirements For Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRS). Value Health. 2017;20(9):A698. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1799
  3. Allen N, Liberti L, Walker SR, Salek S. A comparison of reimbursement recommendations by European HTA agencies: is there opportunity for further alignment? Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:384. doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00384
  4. Kim H, Goodall S, Liew D. Health technology assessment challenges in oncology: 20 years of value in health. Value Health. 2019;22(5):593-600. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.001
  5. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437-1443. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1409
  6. Australian Government Department of Health. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government Department of Health; 2015.
  7. Latimer N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Survival Analysis for Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials-Extrapolation with Patient-Level Data. http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NICE-DSU-TSD-Survival-analysis.updated-March-2013.v2.pdf. Published 2013.
  8. Bohensky MA, Pasupathi K, Gorelik A, Kim H, Harrison JP, Liew D. A cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab compared with ipilimumab for the treatment of BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma in Australia. Value Health. 2016;19(8):1009-1015. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.013
  9. Hougaard P. Analysis of Multivariate Survival Data. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
  10. Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. Florida, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.
  11. Gibson E, Koblbauer I, Begum N, et al. Modelling the survival outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs in economic evaluations: a systematic approach to data analysis and extrapolation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(12):1257-1270. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0558-5
  12. Australian Government PBAC. Public summary document: trastuzumab for HER2 positive breast cancer. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2006-07/trastuzumab.  2006.
  13. Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials--extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(6):743-754. doi:10.1177/0272989x12472398
  14. Bullement A, Meng Y, Cooper M, et al. A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available? J Med Econ. 2019;22(3):205-214. doi:10.1080/13696998.2018.1547303
  15. Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10(5):326-335. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x
  16. Tappenden P, Sadler S, Wildman M. An early health economic analysis of the potential cost effectiveness of an adherence intervention to improve outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(6):647-659. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0500-x
  17. Singal AG, Higgins PD, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5:e45. doi:10.1038/ctg.2013.13
  18. Tracy M, Cerda M, Keyes KM. Agent-based modeling in public health: current applications and future directions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:77-94. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014317
  19. Marshall DA, Burgos-Liz L, IJzerman MJ, et al. Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research-the SIMULATE checklist: report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2015;18(1):5-16. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.001
  20. Cook G, Kim H. From regulatory approval to subsidized patient access in the Asia-Pacific region: a comparison of systems across Australia, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Thailand. Value Health Reg Issues. 2015;6:40-45. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2015.03.013
  21. European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU.  https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/com2018_51final_en.pdf. Published 2018.
  22. Tuffaha HW, Scuffham PA. The Australian managed entry scheme: are we getting it right? Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(5):555-565. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0633-6
  23. Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, et al. Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:153. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-153
  24. Vitry A, Roughead E. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals in Australia. Health Policy. 2014;117(3):345-352. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.05.005
  25. Australian Government PBAC. Public Summary Document: Ipilimumab - November 2012. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2012-11/ipilimumab. Published 2012.
  26. Kim H, Comey S, Hausler K, Cook G. A real world example of coverage with evidence development in Australia - ipilimumab for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2018;11:4. doi:10.1186/s40545-018-0131-4
  27. Gonçalves FR, Santos S, Silva C, Sousa G. Risk-sharing agreements, present and future. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:823. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2018.823
  28. Australian Government PBAC. Public Summary Document: Pembrolizumab (NSCLC) July 2018. http://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2018-07/Pembrolizumab-Keytruda-psd-july-2018. Published 2018.
  29. IJzerman MJ, Koffijberg H, Fenwick E, Krahn M. Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: a scoping review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):727-740. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 10, Issue 2
February 2021
Pages 98-101

  • Received Date 28 October 2019
  • Revised Date 25 January 2020
  • Accepted Date 26 January 2020
  • First Published Date 01 February 2021
  • Published Date 01 February 2021