IQWiG's methods for the cost-benefit assessment. Comparison with an international reference scenario

被引:0
|
作者
Schwalm, A. [1 ]
Danner, M. [1 ]
Seidl, A. [1 ]
Volz, F. [1 ]
Dintsios, C. M. [1 ]
Gerber, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] IQWiG, D-51105 Cologne, Germany
关键词
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; Health economic evaluation/methods; Reference case; Quality-adjusted life year (QALY); GENERAL-POPULATION; HEALTH; PREFERENCES; EFFICIENCY; DECISIONS; DRUGS; EQ-5D;
D O I
10.1007/s00103-010-1067-2
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Standardization of international health economic guidelines has been repeatedly requested. In this context, an international reference case was proposed, which constitutes an agreed approach for the key elements of health economic evaluation including study perspective, comparators, source of effectiveness data, role of modeling, main (economic) outcome, source of utilities, characterizing uncertainty. It is, however, questionable whether such a reference scenario can reasonably be applied across all health care systems. Our analysis pursues the question to which degree the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care's (Institut fur Qualitat und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWiG)"General methods for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit" comply with the key elements of the reference case. In case of divergences, they will be described and discussed in light of the German social legislation and in consideration of current scientific evidence. In conclusion, the analysis revealed that IQWiG complied with the reference case in almost all aspects. Differences were found only with respect to the choice of main (economic) outcome and the source of utilities. These differences seem justified and well explained in the context of the German social legislation as well as in view of the weaknesses of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) concept.
引用
收藏
页码:615 / 622
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] COST-BENEFIT AND RISK-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FOR NUCLEAR-POWER PLANTS
    EICHHOLZ, GG
    NUCLEAR SAFETY, 1976, 17 (05): : 525 - 539
  • [42] A Cost-Benefit Analysis based model to evaluate the retrofit of a reference district
    Becchio, Cristina
    Bottero, Marta
    Corgnati, Stefano P.
    Dell'Anna, Federico
    Delmastro, Chiara
    Pesce, Elisa
    Vergerio, Giulia
    PROCEEDINGS OF BUILDING SIMULATION 2019: 16TH CONFERENCE OF IBPSA, 2020, : 3516 - 3523
  • [43] OPTIMIZATION OF RADIATION PROTECTION - A COMPARISON OF COST-BENEFIT AND RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSES
    ROSSIELLO, LA
    FAILLA, L
    AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1988, 49 (06): : A368 - A369
  • [44] Riding smooth: A cost-benefit assessment of surface quality on Copenhagen's bicycle network
    Argyros, Dimitrios
    Jensen, Anders Fjendbo
    Rich, Jeppe
    Dalyot, Sagi
    SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2024, 108
  • [45] Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions
    Fahy, BN
    Bold, RJ
    Schneider, PD
    Khatri, V
    Goodnight, JE
    ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2001, 136 (09) : 990 - 994
  • [47] Comparison of rapeseed and mineral oils using Life-Cycle Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Wightman, P
    Eavis, R
    Batchelor, S
    Walker, K
    Bennett, R
    Carruthers, P
    Tranter, R
    OCL-OLEAGINEUX CORPS GRAS LIPIDES, 1999, 6 (05): : 384 - 388
  • [48] Cost-Benefit Analysis, Who's Your Daddy?
    Sunstein, Cass R.
    JOURNAL OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS, 2016, 7 (01): : 107 - 120
  • [49] Cost-benefit analysis of China's farming system
    Suo, Xinhao
    Cao, Shixiong
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2021, 113 (03) : 2407 - 2416
  • [50] The long-term scenario and greenhouse gas effects cost-benefit analysis of Iran's electricity sector
    Kachoee, Mohammad Sadegh
    Salimi, Mohsen
    Amidpour, Majid
    ENERGY, 2018, 143 : 585 - 596