The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 196–206 | Cite as

Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards

  • Ágota SzendeEmail author
  • Z. Mogyorósy
  • N. Muszbek
  • J. Nagy
  • G. Pallos
  • C Dözsa
Invited papers


Economic Evaluation Health Gain Healthcare Intervention Health Economic Evaluation Methodological Guideline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Az Egèszsègügyi Minisztèrium szakmai irànyelve az egèszsèg-gazdasagtani elemzèsek kèszitèsèhez (2002) Egèszsègügyi Közlöny, vol LII/11,pp 1314–1334Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Szende A, Pallos G (2000) Comparison of international methodological guidelines on conducting cost-effectiveness studies (in Hungarian), Egészségügyi Gazdasági Szemle 38:5:469–482Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD (2000) Health data.Comparative analysis of 29 countries.CREDES.OECDGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maynard A (1991) Developing the health care market. Econ J 101:1277–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond ME, O'Brein B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW (1999) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford MedicalGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams A (2000) Measuring quality of life: why and how (in Hungarian)? Egészségügyi Gazdasági Szemle 38:3:239–248Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russel LB, et al (1997) Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 11:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ontario Ministry of Health (1994) Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (1999) Guidelines for preparation of an account of health-economic aspects.FinlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Portuguese Pharmacy and Medicines Institute (1998) Orientações metodológicas para estudos de avaliação económica de medicamentos. Portugal: INFARMEDGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langley PC (1999) Formulary guidelines for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada. Pharmacoeconomics 16:211–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anonymous (n.d.) Irish health technology assessment guidelines, draft version 2.National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in IrelandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Food and Drug Administration (1995) Draft guidelines.Principles for review of pharmacoeconomic promotion. Washington: FDAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung (1995) Swiss Manual for the standardisation of clinical and economic evaluation of medical technology, second draft.Switzerland: Bundesamt für SozialversicherungGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (1995) A Proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Belgium: BESPEGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (1997) Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals, 2nd edn.Ottawa: CCOHTAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collège des Economistes de la Santé (1997) Guidelines and recommendations for French pharmaco-economic studies. France: Collège des Economistes de la SantéGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garattini L, Grilli R, Scopelliti D, Mantovani L (1995) A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics.Pharmacoeconomics 7:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shulenberg J-M Graf von dem, et al (1995) Hanover guidelines for economic evaluation of health services (original title: Hannover Guidelines für die ökonomische Evaluation von Gesundheitsgütern und -dienstleistungen). Institut für Versicherungsbetriebslehre, Diskussionspapier no 10.Pharmazeutische Industrie 57:265–268Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Task Force on the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (1995) Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research.Washington: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology (1995) Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 122:61–70Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Australia Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1995) Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Danish Ministry of Health (1995) Sundhedsøkonomiske evalueringer af lægemidler, draft. Denmark: Danish Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    (1998) Pharmacoeconomic guidelines, draft. The Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Public Health,Welfare and SportGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. UK: NICEGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norwegian Medicines Control Authority (1998) Forslag til Norske retningslinjer for legemiddeløkonomiske analyser i forbindelse med søknad om refusjon på blåresept. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Control AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rovira J, Antonanzas F (1995) Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. A Spanish proposal for methodological standardisation Pharmacoeconomics 8:245–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    PHARMAC (1999) A prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis, version 1.PHARMACGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mogyorosy, ZS (2001) Evidence based medicine - the new paradigm for the XXI. century. Anno 2000.Orvostudomány Magyarországon. Springer,Budapest,pp 101–112Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report 4, 2nd edn.York: University of YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Department of Health and Aged Care (2000) Interim document to accompany the guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee.Australia: Department of Health and Aged CareGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination (1996) Making cost-effectiveness information accessible: the NHS economic evaluation database, CRD report 6.York: University of YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rittenhouse B (1996) Uses of models in economic evaluations of medicines and other health technologies.London: Office of Health Economics, BSC printGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheldon T (1996) Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 5:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nuijten MJC, Pronk M, Brorens MJA (1998) Reporting format for economic evaluation. II.Focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 14:259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Code Up-dating Working Committee Ministry of Health (2000) Methodological guideline for measurement of resource-consumption to update of reimbursement parameters of health services.Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    CDHHCS (1993) Background document on the use of economic analysis as a basis for inclusion of pharmaceutical products on the pharmaceutical benefit scheme.Australia: Australian Government Publishing ServiceGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liljas B (1998) How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations.Pharmacoeconomics 13(1)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH (1997) A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 10:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ministry of Health (2000) Price information in the healthcare sector.Price Information Bulletin.Budapest: Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Central Statistical Office (2000) Annual statistical yearbook.Budapest: Ministry of HealthGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J (2001) Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 19:609–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ágota Szende
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Z. Mogyorósy
    • 3
  • N. Muszbek
    • 3
  • J. Nagy
    • 4
  • G. Pallos
    • 5
  • C Dözsa
    • 6
  1. 1.Medtap Internationa, Amsterdam OfficeLC JispThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Ministry of FinanceBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Information Centre for Healthcare (GYÓGYINFOK)SzekszárdHungary
  5. 5.Ministry of HealthBudapestHungary
  6. 6.National Health Insurance FundBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations