<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Drummond, M.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/18058/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: Reference pricing versus health technology assessment (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25133/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-06-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Reference pricing and health technology assessment are policies commonly applied in order to obtain more value for money from pharmaceuticals. This study focussed on decisions about the initial price and reimbursement status of innovative drugs and discussed the consequences for market access and cost. Four countries were studied: Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These countries have operated one, or both, of the two policies at certain points in time, sometimes in parallel. Drugs in four groups were considered: cholesterol-lowering agents, insulin analogues, biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and "atypical" drugs for schizophrenia. Compared with HTA, reference pricing is a relatively blunt instrument for obtaining value for money from pharmaceuticals. Thus, its role in making reimbursement decisions should be limited to drugs which are therapeutically equivalent. HTA is a superior strategy for obtaining value for money because it addresses not only price but also the appropriate indications for the use of the drug and the relation between additional value and additional costs. However, given the relatively higher costs of conducting HTAs, the most efficient approach might be a combination of both policies. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32743/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-12-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Objectives: The objectives of this article were to assess the positions of the various national pharmacoeconomic guidelines on the transferability (or lack of transferability) of clinical and economic data and to review the methods suggested in the guidelines for addressing issues of transferability. Methods: A review of existing national pharmacoeconomic guidelines was conducted to assess recommendations on the transferability of clinical and economic data, whether there are important differences between countries, and whether common methodologies have been suggested to address key transferability issues. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines were initially identified through the ISPOR Web site. In addition, those national guidelines not included in the ISPOR Web site, but known to us, were also considered. Results: Across 27 sets of guidelines, baseline risk and unit costs were uniformly considered to be of low transferability, while treatment effect was classified as highly transferable. Results were more variable for resource use and utilities, which were considered to have low transferability in 63% and 45% of cases, respectively. There were some differences between older and more recent guidelines in the treatment of transferability issues. Conclusions: A growing number of jurisdictions are using guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The recommendations in existing guidelines regarding the transferability of clinical and economic data are quite diverse. There is a case for standardization in dealing with transferability issues. One important step would be to update guidelines more frequently. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Introduction (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/15227/</link>
      <pubDate>1994-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description></description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>