Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH

  • Adrian Towse (a1), Bengt Jonsson (a2), Clare McGrath (a3), Anne Mason (a4), Ruth Puig-Peiro (a5), Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz (a6), Michele Pistollato (a6) and Nancy Devlin (a6)...

Abstract

Background: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood.

Methods: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time.

Results: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems.

Conclusions: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Hide All
1. Eichler, H-G, Bloechl-Daum, B, Abadie, E, et al. Relative efficacy of drugs: An emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:277291.
2. Eichler, H-G, Pignatti, F, Flamion, B, Leufkens, H, Breckenridge, A. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: A mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:818826.
3. European Medicines Agency. Assessment report for acomplia. EMEA/65105/2009. London: European Medicines Agency; 2009:5.
4. High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. Core principles on relative effectiveness. Brussels: European Commission: Healthcare Industries Working Group on Relative Effectiveness; 2008:10.
5. Eichler, H-G, Abadie, E, Breckenridge, A, et al. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: A regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:495506.
6. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. PL. No. 111–148 sec. 6301; 2010.
7. Garber, AM, Sox, HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:18051811.
8. Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, Puig-Peiró, R, Towse, A. Researching the relative efficacy and relative effectiveness of medicines across Europe. OHE Consulting Report. London: Office of Health Economics; 2010.
9. Wallentin, L, Yusuf, S, Ezekowitz, MD, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran compared with warfarin at different levels of international normalised ratio control for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: An analysis of the RE-LY trial. Lancet. 2010;376:975983.
10. European Medicines Agency. Road map to 2015: The European Medicines Agency's contribution to science, medicines and health. London: European Medicines Agency; 2011:28.
11. European network for Health Technology Assessment. EUnetHTA Guideline. Levels of evidence: Applicability of evidence in the context of a relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. Final version (February). Copenhagen: EUnetHTA; 2013.
12. Saltman, RB, Calltorp, J, de Roo, AA. Health sector innovation and partnership. In: OECD, ed. Health reform: Meeting the challenge of ageing and multiple morbidities. Paris and Washington, DC: OECD Publishing; 2011:143172.
13. Garber, AM. US healthcare reform: Monumental health system transformation or fatally flawed compromise? OHE Annual Lecture. London: OHE; 2010.
14. Luce, BR, Drummond, M, Jonsson, B, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88:256276.
15. Puig-Peiro, R, Mason, A, Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, Towse, T, McGrath, C, Jonsson, B. Relative effectiveness in breast cancer treatment: A health production approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016; doi.10.1017/S0266462315000720.
16. Jönsson, B. Relative effectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:97102.
17. Lindgren, P, Jönsson, B, Yusuf, S. Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes in Sweden: A long-term model based on the CURE trial. J Intern Med. 2004;255:562570.
18. Lauer, MS, D’Agostino, RB Sr. The randomized registry trial–the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med. 2013;369:15791581.
19. Luce, BR, Drummond, MF, Dubois, RW, et al. Principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1:431440.
20. Zuckerman, S, Hadley, J, Iezzoni, L. Measuring hospital efficiency with frontier cost functions. J Health Econ. 1994;13:255280; discussion 335–340.
21. Worthington, AC. Frontier efficiency measurement in health care: A review of empirical techniques and selected applications. Med Care Res Rev. 2004;61:135170.
22. Hollingsworth, B, Dawson, PJ, Maniadakis, N. Efficiency measurement of health care: A review of non-parametric methods and applications. Health Care Manag Sci. 1999;2:161172.
23. Hollingsworth, B. Non-parametric and parametric applications measuring efficiency in health care. Health Care Manag Sci. 2003;6:203218.
24. Färe, R, Grosskopf, S, Lindgren, B, Roos, P. Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals: A malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes, A, Cooper, WW, Lewin, AY, Seiford, LM, eds. Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology, and applications. New York: Springer Science; 1994:253272.
25. Hollingsworth, B, Wildman, J. The efficiency of health production: Re-estimating the WHO Panel Data using parametric and non-parametric approaches to provide additional information. Health Econ. 2003;12:493504.
26. Greene, W. Distinguishing between heterogeneity and inefficiency: Stochastic Frontier Analysis of the World Health Organization's Panel Data on National Health Care Systems. Health Econ. 2004;13:959980.
27. European Commission. EuroHOPE European Health Care outcomes, performance and efficiency. 2010. http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/241721 (accessed December 18, 2015).
28. Jacobs, R, Smith, PC, Street, A. Measuring efficiency in health care: Analytic techniques and health policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
29. Coelli, TJ, Rao, DSP, O’Donnell, CJ. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2005.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Towse supplementary material
Towse supplementary material 1

 Word (73 KB)
73 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed