Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2011

01.03.2011 | Leading Article

Germany’s decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs

A comparative analysis with other decision rules

verfasst von: Professor Afschin Gandjour

Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

In Germany, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) makes recommendations for ceiling prices of drugs based on an evaluation of the relationship between costs and effectiveness. To set ceiling prices, IQWiG uses the following decision rule: the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a new drug compared with the next effective intervention should not be higher than that of the next effective intervention compared with its comparator. The purpose of this article is to analyse ethical implications of IQWiG’s rule and compare them with those of two alternative decision rules, one that is based on an absolute cost-effectiveness threshold and one that falls in between. To this end, constrained optimization problems are defined that yield each decision rule. This article shows that IQWiG’s rule accounts for severity of disease and past resource consumption. Potential problems and pitfalls are discussed.
Fußnoten
1
The term ‘decision rule’ is used in its usual sense, i.e. it does not preclude that other criteria may lead to a change in recommendation. the comparator’s comparator) should increase, at most, proportionally to incremental effects.
 
2
As a measure of health benefit, IQWiG uses either clinical outcomes such as mortality, morbidity (e.g. disease complications) and health-related quality of life; validated surrogates (IQWiG,[2] p. 18); or a preference-based measure of outcome that translates health into value (IQWiG,[2] p. 17). While effectiveness should be (ideally) measured on a cardinal value scale, IQWiG also allows the use of clinical outcomes as a measure of effectiveness based on the assumption that they can be seen as having cardinal properties within a certain range (IQWiG,[2] p. 17,18). Hence, there is no requirement to formally transform health consequences and clinical outcomes into a cardinal value scale.
 
3
A search in Google News using the terms ‘cost-effectiveness’, ‘IQWiG’ and ‘rationing’ (in German) yielded only 12 hits for the period from first publication of IQWiG’s method paper in January 2008 until December 2009.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Drummond M, Sorenson C. Use of pharmacoeconomics in drug reimbursement in Australia, Canada and the UK: what can we learn from international experience? In: Arnold RJ, editor. Pharmacoeconomics: from theory to practice. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009 Drummond M, Sorenson C. Use of pharmacoeconomics in drug reimbursement in Australia, Canada and the UK: what can we learn from international experience? In: Arnold RJ, editor. Pharmacoeconomics: from theory to practice. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German Statutory Health Care System. Version 1.0 [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Oct 12 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German Statutory Health Care System. Version 1.0 [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Oct 12
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Raftery J. Regulation of drug pricing in Australia, England, and New Zealand. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2009; 7(1): 26–8PubMed Raftery J. Regulation of drug pricing in Australia, England, and New Zealand. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2009; 7(1): 26–8PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Krauth C, John J, Aidelsburger P, et al. Comments by the Working Group for Methods of Economic Evaluation in Health Care (AG MEG) to IQWiG’s Draft Guidelines ‘Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German Statutory Health Care System’ [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 2008 Jun; 70(6): e1–16PubMedCrossRef Krauth C, John J, Aidelsburger P, et al. Comments by the Working Group for Methods of Economic Evaluation in Health Care (AG MEG) to IQWiG’s Draft Guidelines ‘Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German Statutory Health Care System’ [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 2008 Jun; 70(6): e1–16PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Documentation of comments on ‘Draft method for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit in the German Statutory Health Insurance System, version 2.0’ [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Oct 12 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Documentation of comments on ‘Draft method for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit in the German Statutory Health Insurance System, version 2.0’ [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Oct 12
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Appraisal of IQWiG’s Scientific Advisory Board’s recommendations regarding draft version 1.1 [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Mar 16 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Appraisal of IQWiG’s Scientific Advisory Board’s recommendations regarding draft version 1.1 [in German]. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Mar 16
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Fünftes Buch (V) — Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung — (SGB V). Artikel 1 G. v. 20.12.1988 BGBl. I S. 2477, 2482; zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 2 G. v. 22.12.2010 BGBl. I S. 2309; Geltung ab 01.01.1989 Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Fünftes Buch (V) — Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung — (SGB V). Artikel 1 G. v. 20.12.1988 BGBl. I S. 2477, 2482; zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 2 G. v. 22.12.2010 BGBl. I S. 2309; Geltung ab 01.01.1989
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 2003; 12(4): 255–67PubMedCrossRef Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 2003; 12(4): 255–67PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC. The public’s preferences concerning the allocation of financial resources to health care: results from a representative population survey in Germany. Eur Psychiatry 2004; 19(8): 478–82PubMedCrossRef Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC. The public’s preferences concerning the allocation of financial resources to health care: results from a representative population survey in Germany. Eur Psychiatry 2004; 19(8): 478–82PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Camidge R, Walker A, Oliver JJ, et al. Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments. BMJ 2005; 330(7504): 1382–4PubMedCrossRef Camidge R, Walker A, Oliver JJ, et al. Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments. BMJ 2005; 330(7504): 1382–4PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Weinstein MC, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–57CrossRef Weinstein MC, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–57CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Bala MV, Zarkin GA, Mauskopf JA. Conditions for the near equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Value Health 2002; 5(4): 338–46PubMedCrossRef Bala MV, Zarkin GA, Mauskopf JA. Conditions for the near equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Value Health 2002; 5(4): 338–46PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11(3): 279–96PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11(3): 279–96PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Sendi P, Al MJ. Revisiting the decision rule of cost-effectiveness analysis under certainty and uncertainty. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(6): 969–74PubMedCrossRef Sendi P, Al MJ. Revisiting the decision rule of cost-effectiveness analysis under certainty and uncertainty. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(6): 969–74PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62(9): 2091–100PubMedCrossRef Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62(9): 2091–100PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14(2): 197–208PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14(2): 197–208PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Dworkin R. What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos Public Aff 1981; 10: 283–345 Dworkin R. What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos Public Aff 1981; 10: 283–345
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Dranove D, Kessler D, McClellan M, et al. Is more information better? The effects of ‘report cards’ on health care providers. J Polit Econ 2003; 111: 555–88CrossRef Dranove D, Kessler D, McClellan M, et al. Is more information better? The effects of ‘report cards’ on health care providers. J Polit Econ 2003; 111: 555–88CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Barro JR, Huckman RS, Kessler DP. The effects of cardiac specialty hospitals on the cost and quality of medical care. J Health Econ 2006; 25(4): 702–21PubMedCrossRef Barro JR, Huckman RS, Kessler DP. The effects of cardiac specialty hospitals on the cost and quality of medical care. J Health Econ 2006; 25(4): 702–21PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Germany’s decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs
A comparative analysis with other decision rules
verfasst von
Professor Afschin Gandjour
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2011
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11586640-000000000-00000

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2011 Zur Ausgabe