Advertisement

Journal of Public Health

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 257–264 | Cite as

Policy decision making and outcomes research in drug utilization

  • R. Rychlik
  • A. Wertheimer
  • H. Rusche
  • M. Augustin
  • S. Nelles
  • W. Böcking
Original Article

Abstract

Health-care systems all over the world tend to be under permanent review and policy decision making is increasingly driven only by political decisions concerning resource allocation. Drug utilization is a major concern within policy decision making, of relevance to and sometimes even bridging both the pharmaceutical industry and medical community. Outcomes and effectiveness research emphasizes the accountability of the health-care delivery system and focuses on the medium and long-term results of treatment and preventive interventions. With increasing health-care costs and growing concerns about the quality of care, appropriate health outcome measures are essential for assessing the quality, necessity, and effectiveness of health care. These outcome measures are reviewed addressing the influence of evidenced-based medicine and discussing the underlying methods which are applied throughout Europe and the US for reimbursement purposes and application procedures in drug utilization management.

Keywords

Policy decision making Health policy Outcomes research Efficacy and effectiveness Drug utilization 

References

  1. Abel U, Koch A (1997) The mythology of randomization. In: Abel U, Koch A (eds) Nonrandomized comparative clinical studies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nonrandomized Comparative Clinical Studies, 10–11 April 1997, Heidelberg, Germany. Symposion Publishing, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  2. Breyer F, Zweifel P (1997) Gesundheitsökonomie, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 29Google Scholar
  3. Camann MA (2001) Outcomes of care: the use of conceptual models to “see the forest and the trees” in planning outcomes studies. Top Health Inf Manage 22(2):10–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. CDER/CBER (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/Center for Biological Evaluation and Research) (2004) Guidance documents. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  5. Dannehl K (1997) Experimental study versus non-experimental study: the non-experimental (non-randomized) study as a methodological compromise. In: Abel U, Koch A (eds) Nonrandomized comparative clinical studies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nonrandomized Comparative Clinical Studies, 10–11 April 1997, Heidelberg, Germany. Symposion Publishing, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  6. Healey A, Mirandola M, Amaddeo F, Bonizzato P, Tansella M (2000) Using health production functions to evaluate treatment effectiveness: an application to a community mental health service. Health Econ 9(5):373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoppe JD (2005) Qualitätswettbewerb, Nutzenbewertung und Patientenbeteiligung. Garanten für die Zukunft des GKV-Systems oder Wegbereiter für eine Zweiklassen-Medizin? Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag 10(1) (in print)Google Scholar
  8. King JT Jr, Ratcheson RA (1998) Cost and outcomes analysis. Neurosurg Clin N Am 9(3):629–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee SJ, Earle CC, Weeks JC (2000) Outcomes research in oncology: history, conceptual framework, and trends in the literature. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):195–204Google Scholar
  10. Lorenz W, Koller M (2002) Empirically-based concepts of outcome and quality of life. In: Gimmler A, Lenk C, Aumüller G (eds) Health and quality of life. Philosophical, medical, and cultural aspects, 2nd edn. LIT Verlag, Münster, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  11. Michaelis J (1997) Reference-controlled observational studies—a new tool for post marketing studies and for evaluation of preventive measures. In: Abel U, Koch A (eds) Nonrandomized comparative clinical studies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nonrandomized Comparative Clinical Studies, 10–11 April 1997, Heidelberg, Germany. Symposion Publishing, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (2005) Tysabri Suspended From The Market. Bulletin 03-31–2005: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/Research-2005Feb28.aspGoogle Scholar
  14. Orlewska E, Mierzejewki P (2000) Polish guidelines for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Farmakoekonomika Suppl 1:3–11Google Scholar
  15. Prendergast ML, Podus D (2000) Drug treatment effectiveness: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Subst Use Misuse 35(12-14):1629–1657Google Scholar
  16. Roberts TG, Chabner BA (2004) Beyond fast track for drug approvals. New Engl J Med 351(5):501–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rychlik R (2004) Health economical evaluation of drug utilization—an international review. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag 9(3):177–185Google Scholar
  18. Rychlik R, Rusche H, Augustin M (2004) Systematics of drug benefit evaluation. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag 9(4):245–252Google Scholar
  19. Schmacke N (2004) Bewertung des Nutzens von Arzneimitteln aus ärztlicher Sicht. Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik 58(5-6):42–47Google Scholar
  20. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM (2003) Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12):1624–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Weisz JR, Weiss B, Donenberg GR (1992) The lab versus the clinic: effects of child and adolescent psychotherapy. Am Psychol 47(12):1578–1585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams JI, Höher J, Lauterbach KW (1998) Health services research. In: Troidl H, McKneally MF, Mulder DS, Wechsler AS, McPeek B, Spitzer WO (eds) Surgical research—basic principles and clinical practice, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, pp 533–554Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Rychlik
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. Wertheimer
    • 2
  • H. Rusche
    • 3
  • M. Augustin
    • 4
  • S. Nelles
    • 1
  • W. Böcking
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Empirical Health EconomicsBurscheidGermany
  2. 2.School of PharmacyTemple UniversityUSA
  3. 3.School of General MedicineUniversity of BochumBochumGermany
  4. 4.Department of Dermatology and VenerologyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Research Association Public Health Saxony e.V.DresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations