Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Sep;5(3):349-364.
doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7. Epub 2021 Jan 10.

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

Deepshikha Sharma  1 , Arun Kumar Aggarwal  1 , Laura E Downey  2 , Shankar Prinja  3
Affiliations
Review

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

Deepshikha Sharma et al. Pharmacoecon Open. 2021 Sep.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines.

Methodology: A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken.

Results: Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely.

Conclusion: Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Deepshikha Sharma, Arun Kumar Aggarwal, Laura E. Downey and Shankar Prinja declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of included national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Timeline of the publication of national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Discount rates recommended by national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines. SA South Africa
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chernew ME, May D. Health care cost growth. In: Glied S, Smith PC, editors. The Oxford handbook of health economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
    1. Mitton C, Seixas BV, Peacock S, Burgess M, Bryan S. Health technology assessment as part of a broader process for priority setting and resource allocation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(5):573–576. doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00488-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Assembly. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. WHA Resolution; Sixty seventh World Health Assembly, 2014. WHA67.23. 2014. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/m/abstract/Js21463en/. Accessed 11 July 2020.
    1. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):1. doi: 10.1017/S026646230400073X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, Vega J, Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(6):462. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.155721. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources