Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:42:50.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A review of heath economic evaluation practice in the Netherlands: are we moving forward?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2023

Andrea Gabrio*
Affiliation:
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
*
Corresponding author. Email: a.gabrio@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Abstract

Economic evaluations have been increasingly conducted in different countries to aid national decision-making bodies in resource allocation problems based on current and prospective evidence on costs and effects data for a set of competing health care interventions. In 2016, the Dutch National Health Care Institute issued new guidelines that aggregated and updated previous recommendations on key elements for conducting economic evaluation. However, the impact on standard practice after the introduction of the guidelines in terms of design, methodology and reporting choices, is still uncertain. To assess this impact, we examine and compare key analysis components of economic evaluations conducted in the Netherlands before (2010–2015) and after (2016–2020) the introduction of the recent guidelines. We specifically focus on two aspects of the analysis that are crucial in determining the plausibility of the results: statistical methodology and missing data handling. Our review shows how, over the last period, many components of economic evaluations have changed in accordance with the new recommendations towards more transparent and advanced analytic approaches. However, potential limitations are identified in terms of the use of less advanced statistical software together with rarely satisfactory information to support the choice of missing data methods, especially in sensitivity analysis.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (1992) Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee, including submissions involving economic analyses.Google Scholar
Baio, G and Heath, A (2017). When simple becomes complicated: why excel should lose its place at the top table.10.5301/grhta.5000247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, WC (1990) The CE-plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Medical Decision Making 10, 212214.10.1177/0272989X9001000308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, A (1999) Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation. BMJ 319, 120.10.1136/bmj.319.7202.120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, MK and Torgerson, DJ (1999) Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. QJM 92, 177182.10.1093/qjmed/92.3.177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, KP and Sculpher, MJ (2006) Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research. PharmacoEconomics 24, 10551068.10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, McCabe, C, Briggs, A, Akehurst, R, Buxton, M, Brazier, J and O'Hagan, T (2005) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for nice technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Economics 14, 339347.10.1002/hec.985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, MJ and Hogan, JW (2008) Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies: Strategies for Bayesian Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.10.1201/9781420011180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delwel, G (2008) Guidance for outcomes research for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of in-patient medicines. Diemen, The Netherlands: Health Care Insurance Board. Report No.: 270: 28113706.Google Scholar
Efron, B and Tibshirani, RJ (1994) An introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabrio, A, Mason, AJ and Baio, G (2017) Handling missing data in within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis: a review with future recommendations. PharmacoEconomics 1, 7997.10.1007/s41669-017-0015-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garattini, L and Padula, A (2017) Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation: ‘from good to better’ in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 110, 98103.10.1177/0141076817690395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garattini, L and Padula, A (2017) Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation:‘from good to better’in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 110(3), 98103.10.1177/0141076817690395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hakkaart-van Roijen, L, van der Linden, N, Bouwmans, C, Kanters, T, Tan, SS and Kostenhandleiding, S (2016) Methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Zorginstituut Nederland, 1120. Available from: www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/publicatie/2016/02/29/richtlijn-voor-het-uitvoeren-vaneconomische-evaluaties-in-de-gezondheidszorg.Google Scholar
Hjelmgren, J, Berggren, F and Andersson, F (2001) Health economic guidelines-similarities, differences and some implications. Value in Health 4, 225250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Incerti, D, Thom, H, Baio, G and Jansen, JP (2019) R you still using Excel? The advantages of modern software tools for health technology assessment. Value in Health 22, 575579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISPOR (2017) Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the World. Available at https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/ (accessed: 2021-07-23).Google Scholar
Janssen, M, Pickard, AS, Golicki, D, Gudex, C, Niewada, M, Scalone, L, Swinburn, P and Busschbach, J (2013) Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Quality of Life Research 22, 17171727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manca, A, Hawkins, N and Sculpher, MJ (2005a) Estimating mean QALYs in trial based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Economics 14, 487496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manca, A, Rice, N, Sculpher, MJ and Briggs, AH (2005b) Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models. Health Economics 14, 471485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenberghs, G and Kenward, M (2007). Missing Data in Clinical Studies, vol. 61. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470510445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICE (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013.Google Scholar
Postma, MJ and Krabbe, PFM (2006) Farmaco-economisch onderzoek: doelmatigheid van geneesmiddelen. Geneesmiddelen Bulletin, Jaargang 40, 133140.Google Scholar
Ramsey, SD, Willke, RJ, Glick, H, Reed, SD, Augustovski, F, Jonsson, B, Briggs, A and Sullivan, SD (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II – an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value in Health 18, 161172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, N and Jones, A (1997) Multilevel models and health economics. Health Economics 6, 561575.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, DB (2004) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, vol. 81. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Van Asselt, AD, Van Mastrigt, GA, Dirksen, CD, Arntz, A, Severens, JL and Kessels, AG (2009) How to deal with cost differences at baseline. PharmacoEconomics 27, 519528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Buuren, S (2018) Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hout, BA, Al, MJ, Gordon, GS and Rutten, FF (1994) Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Economics 3, 309319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, M, Knies, S and Brouwer, W (2016a) From good to better: new Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in healthcare. PharmacoEconomics 34, 10711074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Versteegh, MM, Vermeulen, KM, Evers, SM, De Wit, GA, Prenger, R and Stolk, EA (2016b) Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health 19, 343352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, AJ and Altman, DG (2001) Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 323, 11231124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willan, AR, Briggs, AH and Hoch, JS (2004) Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Economics 13, 461475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zellner, A and Huang, DS (1962) Further properties of efficient estimators for seemingly unrelated regression equations. International Economic Review 3, 300313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorginstituut Nederland (2016) Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. Retrieved from https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-foreconomic-evaluations-in-healthcare.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gabrio supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Gabrio supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 139.9 KB