title: How to assess the value of medicines?
abstract: This study aims to discuss approaches to assessing the value of medicines. Economic evaluation assesses value by means of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Health is maximized by selecting medicines with increasing ICERs until the budget is exhausted. The budget size determines the value of the threshold ICER and vice versa. Alternatively, the threshold value can be inferred from pricing/reimbursement decisions, although such values vary between countries. Threshold values derived from the value-of-life literature depend on the technique used. The World Health Organization has proposed a threshold value tied to the national GDP. As decision makers may wish to consider multiple criteria, variable threshold values and weighted ICERs have been suggested. Other approaches (i.e., replacement approach, program budgeting and marginal analysis) have focused on improving resource allocation, rather than maximizing health subject to a budget constraint. Alternatively, the generalized optimization framework and multi-criteria decision analysis make it possible to consider other criteria in addition to value.
authors: Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Leuven, Belgium.
authors: Steven
authors: S
authors: Simoens
references: BMJ. 2006 Nov 25;333(7578):1118-20
references: 17124225
references: Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
references: 9566468
references: J Health Econ. 1997 Feb;16(1):1-31
references: 10167341
references: Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1092-9
references: 23244812
references: Health Econ. 2005 Feb;14(2):197-208
references: 15386656
references: Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Aug 21;4:14
references: 16923181
references: CMAJ. 1992 Feb 15;146(4):473-81
references: 1306034
references: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009 Feb;9(1):65-83
references: 19371180
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1121-31
references: 17067196
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:82-7
references: 19500438
references: Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Summer;16(2):e273-81; discussion e282-4
references: 19439771
references: Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):784-7
references: 18179663
references: Value Health. 2004 Sep-Oct;7(5):518-28
references: 15367247
references: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(1):7-24
references: 20038190
references: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Jun;10(3):221-4
references: 20545585
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(11):691-700
references: 15250748
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44
references: 18767894
references: J Gen Intern Med. 1998 Oct;13(10):716-7
references: 9798822
references: Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):332-42
references: 10929856
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(11):1103-9
references: 11735677
references: Soc Sci Med. 2006 May;62(9):2091-100
references: 16325975
references: Health Policy. 2003 Jun;64(3):335-48
references: 12745172
references: BMJ. 2006 May 27;332(7552):1266-8
references: 16735341
references: BMJ. 2006 Mar 25;332(7543):699-703
references: 16495332
references: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Apr;8(2):165-78
references: 20528406
references: Health Econ. 2002 Jan;11(1):23-31
references: 11788979
references: J Health Econ. 1988 Sep;7(3):289-90
references: 10291478
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(9):727-34
references: 17803332
references: BMJ. 2004 Jul 24;329(7459):224-7
references: 15271836
references: Health Policy. 1991 Feb;17(1):1-23
references: 10113574
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):537-50
references: 18563945
references: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Dec;8(6):575-82
references: 20528368