Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 274–279 | Cite as

Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden

Do health-economic evaluations support decision making?
  • Anders AnellEmail author
  • Ulf Persson
Pricing and Reimbursement Systems in Europe

Abstract

Introduction of the new Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN; 1 October 2002) has markedly changed the principles of pricing and reimbursement of drugs in Sweden. The Board is required to make decisions based on information on cost-effectiveness, and pharmaceutical companies must submit economic evaluations when relevant as part of their applications for reimbursement. This study examined experience to date regarding the use of health-economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness information by the LFN. We also describe activities and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis by Swedish local formulary committees organized by the 21 county councils. It is concluded that economic evaluations have supported decision making by LFN, although cost-effectiveness seems to be of varying importance in different situations. While the use of health-economic evaluations and the outcome of decision making by LFN are similar to comparable committees in other countries, there is presently a gap in this sense between the LFN and Swedish local formulary committees. Coordinated decision making is much needed but may be difficult to implement as the perspective, expertise, and objectives of the two public authorities differ.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness Reimbursement Clinical guidance Pharmaceuticals Sweden 

References

  1. 1.
    Hoffman C, Graf von der Schulenburg MJ (2000) The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making—a European survey. Health Policy 52:179–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anell A (2004) Priority setting for pharmaceuticals-the use of economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees. Eur J Health Econ 5:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lundkvist J (2002) Pricing and reimbursement of drugs in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ 3:66–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Persson U, Anell A, Persson M (2001) Parallellhandel med läkemedel i Sverige—en ekonomisk analys (Parallel trade of pharmaceuticals in Sweden-an economic analysis). IHE: LundGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apoteket AB (2003) Landstingsförbundet, Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden (2003-06-30) Utbyte av läkemedel. En uppföljning av de första sex månaderna med den nya reformen (Substitution of pharmaceuticals. Experiences following the first six months after the new reform)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anell A, Svarvar P (2000) Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines—a survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees. Pharmacoeconomics 17:175–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Persson U, Anell A, Persson U, Anell A, Nordling S (2002) Pris, subvention och läkemedel-användning av hälsoekonomiska utvärderingar (Price, reimbursement and pharmaceuticals-use of health economic evaluations). IHE: LundGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Socialstyrelsen (2003) En uppföljning av läkemedelskommittéernas arbete-Hur påverkas läkemedelsanvändningen? (Review of activities of fomulary commttees). Socialstyrelsen: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melander A, Nilsson L-G (2001) Läkares relationer till läkemedelskommittéer. Attityder och faktisk förskrivning (Physicians attitudes towards formulary committees and actual prescribing patterns). Apotekarsocieteten: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nordling S, Anell A, Jansson, S (2003) Kostnadsansvar och belöningssystem för förbättrad läkemedelsanvändning (Budget responsibility and incentive schemes for a rational use of drugs). IHE: LundGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jansson S, Anell A (2004) Prioriteringar av läkemedel i praktiken-Vilken betydelse har kostnader för förskrivare? (Attitudes among precsribing physicians towards responsibility for drug expanditures and consideration of cost-effectiveness in decision-making). Lund: IHEGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramsberg J, Odeberg S, Engström A, Lundin D (2004) Examining the quality of health economic analysis submitted to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board in Sweden. The first year. Eur J Health Econ 5:351–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jönsson B, Arvidsson G, Levin L-Å, Rehnberg C (2004) Hälsa, vård och tillväxt. Välfärdspolitiska rådets rapport 2004 (Health, health-care and economic growth). SNS: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buxton M (2001) Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Value Health 4:212–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 323:1300–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish Institute for Health EconomicsLundSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Institute for Health EconomicsLundSweden

Personalised recommendations