Abstract
Since 1997, in order for a new drug to obtain its price and reimbursement in Italy, the negotiation between authorities and the pharmaceutical industry must include an economic evaluation. The economic evaluation study leads to price and reimbursement negotiations together with such other requirements as the price of the new drug in other countries, the impact on the domestic market in terms of public pharmaceutical expenditure, and the effects on the national economy (employment and investments).
In response to the need to set methodological standards for the economic evaluation of drugs a group of about 40 experts (the Italian Group for Pharmacoeconomic Studies) made up of representatives of the regulatory authorities and ministries, academia, and the industry prepared recommendations concerning the methodology and the presentation of pharmacoeconomic studies. The principles were intensively reviewed and discussed during a number of workshops and meetings throughout one year, and then finally and officially presented to the regulatory authorities. The elements which must be contained in each study submitted to the authorities are briefly described in this paper, considering the main theoretical and regulatory contributions found in the literature.
In particular, the economic analyses suggested are cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, and they must be applied from the points of view of both society and the Italian National Health Service. Even though pragmatic economic-clinical trials are preferred, given the difficulties in releasing these kinds of studies for drugs which have just been authorized, the use of models is suggested when satisfying a series of requirements (the reproducibility of the results by the regulatory commission, detailed description of the methodology and the intermediate results, etc.). Preference is given to microcosting, that is, cost measurement performed at the health care provider level (eg, hospitals), from which representative data at the national level can be obtained. In terms of the presentation of an economic evaluation, a synthesis of the study must be prepared on the basis of a detailed list of issues in order to facilitate evaluation of the study by the regulatory authorities. The approach followed by the Italian Group for Pharmacoeconomic Studies is based on the belief that only the recommendations prepared with the active contributions of all subjects interested in the economic evaluation of drugs are likely to be efficiently applied and disseminated.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CIPE, Inter-Ministerial Committee for Economic Planning. Identifying criteria for contracting on the price of innovative medicines. Decree of January 30, 1997. Official Gazette. May 3, 1997.
Joint Government/Pharmaceutical Industry Working Party. UK guidance on good practice in the conduct of economic evaluation of medicines. Br J Med Econ. 1994;7:63–64.
Rovira J, Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programs: a Spanish proposal for methodological standardization. Pharmacoecon. 1995;7:1–6.
Collège des Economistes de la Santé. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmaco-economic studies. CES. April 1997.
Alban A, Keiding H, Søgaard J. Guidelines for Socioeconomic Analyses of Pharmaceuticals. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Health, March 1998.
Alves da Silva E, Gouveia Pinto C, Sampaio C, et al. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies of Medications. Lisbon: INFARMED, November 1998.
Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines. Draft. Pharma Pricing Review. 1999;4:66–68.
Mishan EJ. Cost-benefit analysis. 4th ed. London: Unwin Hyman; 1988.
Kaldor N. Welfare propositions of economic and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic J. 1939;49:549–552.
Hicks JR. The foundation of welfare economics. Economic J. 1939;49:696–712.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1971.
Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health; 1994.
Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1995.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Drug Benefit Research. 1996;8:28–32.
Maynard A. Economic evaluation techniques in healthcare. Reinventing the wheel? Pharmacoecon. 1997;2:115–118.
Freemantle N, Drummond M. Should clinical trials with concurrent economic analyses be blinded? JAMA. 1997;277:63–64.
Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an avoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217–227.
Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7:561–573.
ICH. Consensus Conference. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; January 1997.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, Ineveld van BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14:171–189.
Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ. 1997;16:249–255.
Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluation. Pharmacoecon. 1998;13:1–7.
Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Manual of Resource Items and their Associated Costs. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1995.
Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1998;7:1–7.
Keeler EB, Cretin S. Discounting of life-saving and other nonmonetary effects. Manage Sci. 1983;29: 300–306.
Lipscomb J. Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 1989;27:S233–253.
Viscusi WK, Moore M. Rates of time preference and validation of the duration of life. J Public Econ. 1989;38:297–317.
Parsonage M, Neuburger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ. 1992;1:71–76.
Krahn M, Gafni A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Med Care. 1993;31:403–418.
Olsen JA. On what basis should health be discounted? J Health Econ. 1993;12:39–53.
Lipscomb J. Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 1996;34:DS119–123.
Johannesson M. On the discounting of gained life-years in cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8:359–364.
Gafni A. Time in health: can we measure individuals’ “pure time preference”? Med Decision Making. 1995;32:31–37.
O’Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, et al. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care. 1994;32:150–163.
Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its boot-straps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327–340.
van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309–319.
Wakker P, Klaassen M. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1995;4:373–382.
Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ. 1996;5:297–305.
Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C. Statistical inference for cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1997;6:229–242.
Briggs A, Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Econ. 1995;4:355–371.
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Br Med J. 1996;313:275–283.
Jefferson TO, Smith R, Yee Y, et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and the Lancet. JAMA. 1998;280:275–277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Capri, S., Ceci, A., Terranova, L. et al. Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from The Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 189–201 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500122
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500122