Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1229–1236 | Cite as

Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness

  • Mikael SvenssonEmail author
  • Fredrik O. L. Nilsson
  • Karl Arnberg
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective

The Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) is the government body responsible for deciding whether outpatient drugs are to be included in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This paper analyzes the impact of cost effectiveness and severity of disease on reimbursement decisions for new pharmaceuticals.

Methods

Data has been extracted from all decisions made by the TLV between 2005 and 2011. Cost effectiveness is measured as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas disease severity is a binary variable (severe–not severe). In total, the dataset consists of 102 decisions, with 86 approved and 16 declined reimbursements.

Results

The lowest cost per QALY of declined reimbursements is Swedish kronor (SEK) 700,000 (€79,100), while the highest cost per QALY of approved reimbursements is SEK1,220,000 (€135,600). At a cost per QALY of SEK702,000 Swedish kronor (non-severe diseases) and SEK988,000 (severe diseases), the likelihood of approval is estimated to be 50/50 (€79,400 and €111,700).

Conclusions

The TLV places substantial weight on both the cost effectiveness and the severity of disease in reimbursement decisions, and the implied willingness to pay for a QALY is higher than the often cited ‘rule of thumb’ in Swedish policy debates.

Keywords

Health Technology Assessment High Severity Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme Reimbursement Decision Swedish Krona 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for suggestions and comments from two anonymous reviewers. MS, FN and KA planned the study. FN and KA extracted the data. MS analysed and interpreted the data and wrote most components of the manuscript. FN and KA provided feedback and contributed to various parts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. MS is the overall guarantor of this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

The preparation of this manuscript was partly funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (for the corresponding author). Mikael Svensson, Fredrik Nilsson and Karl Arnberg all declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

40273_2015_307_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    ISPOR. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research: Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines around the World. Available at: http://www.ispororg/peguidelines/index.asp. 2013.
  2. 2.
    Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7(5):518–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anell A, Persson U. Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: do health-economic evaluations support decision making? Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(3):274–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yong JH, Beca J, Hoch JS. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(3):229–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    TLV. Ska TLV genomföra hälsoekonomiska bedömningar av rekvistionsläkemedel? The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency, Stockholm. 2009;DNR 2731/2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah SMB, Barron A, Klinger C, Wright JSF. A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Sweden. Health Policy. 2014;116(1):27–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). PharmacoEconomics. 2001;19(11):1103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(5):713–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77(3):352–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerri KH, Knapp M, Fernandez J-L. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context. Health Econ Policy Law. 2013;FirstView:1–23.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2014. doi: 10.1002/hec.3086 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linley W, Hughes D. Reimbursement decisions of the all wales medicines strategy group. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(9):779–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hugosson K, Engstrom A. Threshold value for a QALY—correlation with disease severity and decsion uncertainty (Poster Abstract). Value Health. 2008;11:A49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persson U, Svensson J, Pettersson B. A new reimbursement system for innovative pharmaceuticals combining value-based and free market pricing. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(4):217–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Franken M, Nilsson F, Sandmann F, Boer A, Koopmanschap M. Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(9):781–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    TLV. Läkemedelsförmånsnämndens allmänna råd. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. 2003;LFNAR 2003:2:Tillgänglig online: http://www.tlv.se/tlv/regelverk/allmanna-rad/.
  19. 19.
    TLV. Samsca (tolvaptan): Hälsoekonomiskt beslutsunderlag. Dnr 606/2013. 2014. Available at: http://www.tlv.se/Upload/Halsoekonomiska_bedomningar/Sammanfattning_samsca.pdf.
  20. 20.
    Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station: Stata Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Socialstyrelsen. Nationella riktlinjer för sjukdomsförebyggande metoder 2011: Hälsoekonomiskt underlag. Socialstyrelsen, Stockholm. 2011; Retrieved Aug 2014 at: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/nationellariktlinjerforsjukdomsforebyggandemetoder/Documents/nr-sjukdomsforebyggande-halsoekonomisktunderlag.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Danzon P, Towse A, Mestre-Ferrandiz J. Value-based differential pricing: efficient prices for drugs in a global context. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):294–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hultkrantz L, Svensson M. The value of a statistical life in Sweden: a review of the empirical literature. Health Policy. 2012;108:302–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dakin HA, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. CHE Research Paper 93, Centre for Health Economics, The University of York. 2013.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baker R, Chilton S, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee MW, Lancsar E, Mason H, et al. Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:435–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coast J. Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants. Health Expect. 2001;4(4):243–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):172–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Svensson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fredrik O. L. Nilsson
    • 2
  • Karl Arnberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations