Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:00:18.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues in the Cross-National Assessment of Health Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Michael F. Drummond ,
Bernard S. Bloom ,
Guy Carrin ,
Alan L. Hillman ,
H. Christina Hutchings ,
Robin P. Knill-jones ,
Gerard De Pouvourville  and
Koen Torfs
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Bernard S. Bloom
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Guy Carrin
Affiliation:
Universiteit Antwerpen
Alan L. Hillman
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
H. Christina Hutchings
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Robin P. Knill-jones
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Gerard De Pouvourville
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique, Paris
Koen Torfs
Affiliation:
Universiteit Antwerpen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the growing international literature in economic evaluation and the rapid spread of new health technologies, there is a need to undertake, or at least interpret, economic evaluations on the international level. However, the ways in which cross-national differences affect the cost-effectiveness of health technologies or their evaluations have never been studied. This paper explores these issues by taking advantage of a unique situation in which the same economic evaluation of a new indication for a health technology was conducted simultaneously in four countries using an identical methodology. The study showed that if prior agreement on methods can be reached and local data applied, economic evaluations can be undertaken in a way that facilitates the extrapolation of results from country to country.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 670 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Britton, M., Jöonsson, E., Marke, L.-A., & Murray, V.Diagnosing suspected stroke: A cost effectiveness analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 147–58.Google Scholar
2.Carrin, G., & Torfs, K.Economic evaluation of the preventive use of misoprostol in osteoarthritic patients treated with NSAIDs: The case of Belgium. Antwerp: Discussion Paper, University of Antwerp, 1989.Google Scholar
3.Commission of the European Communities. The cost of non-Europe in the pharmaceutical industry. Research on the cost of non-Europe, basic findings; volume 15. Brussels: CEC, 1989.Google Scholar
4.Department of Health. Working for patients. London: Department of Health, 1989.Google Scholar
5.Dominguez Uga, M. A.Economic analysis of the vaccination strategies adopted in Brazil in 1982. PAHO Bulletin, 1988, 22(3), 250–68.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Drummond, M. F. (ed.). Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
7.Drummond, M. F. Financial incentives to change behaviour towards health technology. In Stocking, B., (ed.), Expensive health technologies; Regulatory and administrative mechanisms in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 66–78.Google Scholar
8.Drummond, M. F.The role of economic evaluation in the pricing of modern pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical Times, 1990, 03, 38–42.Google Scholar
9.Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
10.Finkler, S. A.On the distinction between costs and charges. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1982, 96, 102–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Graham, D. Y., Agrawal, N. M., & Roth, S. H.Prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer with the synthetic prostaglandin misoprostol: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 1988, ii, 1277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hillman, A. L., & Bloom, B. S.Economic effects of prophylactic use of misoprostol to prevent gastric ulcer in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1989, 149, 2061–65.Google Scholar
13.Horton, S., & Claquin, P.Cost-effectiveness and user characteristics of clinic-based services for the treatment of diarrhoea: A case study in Bangladesh. Social Science and Medicine, 1982, 17(11), 721–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Hull, R. D., Hirsh, J., Sackett, D. L., & Stoddart, G. L.Cost effectiveness of clinical diagnosis, venography and noninvasive testing in patients with symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 1561–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.IMS. National drug and therapeutic index, 1987. Blue Bell, PA: IMS, 1988.Google Scholar
16.Jacobs, J., & Bloom, B. S.Compliance and cost in NSAID therapy. Hospital Therapeutics, 1987(suppl.), 32–39.Google Scholar
17.Knill-Jones, R., Drummond, M. F., Kohli, H., & Davies, L. M.Economic evaluation of gastric ulcer prophylaxis in patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 1990, 66, 639–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.McPherson, K., Wennberg, J. E., Hovind, O., et al. Small area variation in the use of common surgical procedures: An international comparison of New England, England and Norway. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1310–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Pharmaceutical Data Services. PDS prescription audit. Scoftsdale, AZ: Pharmaceutical Data Services, 1988.Google Scholar
20.de Pouvourville, G.Use of misoprostol as a prophylactic treatment in gastric ulceration associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Paris: Centre de Récherche en Gestion, École Polytechnique, 1990.Google Scholar
21.Soll, A. H., & Isenberg, J. I. Duodenal ulcer discases. In Sleisenger, M. H. and Fordtran, J. S., (eds.), Gastrointestinal disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Co., 1983.Google Scholar
22.Sontag, S., Graham, D. Y., Belsito, A., et al. Cimetidine, cigarette smoking and recurrence of duodenal ulcer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 689–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Veale, A. M. O. Screening for phenylketonuria. In Bickel, H., Guthrie, R., and Hammerson, G. (eds.), Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
24.Wang-Ombe, J. K.Economic evaluation in primary health care: The case of Western Kenya Community Health Care Project. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 18(5), 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Warner, K. E., & Luce, B. R.Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in health care. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1982.Google ScholarPubMed
26.Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.Google Scholar