Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 709–721 | Cite as

Introducing economic evaluation as a policy tool in Korea: Will decision makers get quality information?

A critical review of published Korean economic evaluations
  • Kun-Sei Lee
  • Werner B. F. Brouwer
  • Sang-Il Lee
  • Hye-Won Koo
Review Article

Abstract

Interest in the use of economic evaluations in Korea as an aid for healthcare decision makers has been growing rapidly since the financial crisis of the Korean National Health Insurance fund and the separation in 2000 of the roles of prescribing and dispensing drugs. The Korean Health Insurance Review Agency (HIRA) is considering making it mandatory for pharmaceutical companies to submit the results of an economic evaluation when demanding reimbursement of new pharmaceuticals. The usefulness of the results of economic evaluations depends highly on the quality of the studies. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide a critical review of economic evaluations of healthcare technologies published in the Korean context.

Our results show that many studies did not meet international standards. Study designs were suboptimal, study perspectives and types were often stated incompletely, time periods were often too short, and outcome measures were often less than ideal. In addition, some articles did not distinguish between measurement and valuation of resource use. Capital, overhead and productivity costs were often omitted. Only half of the studies performed sensitivity analyses.

In order to further rationalise resource allocation in the Korean healthcare sector, the quality of the information provided through economic evaluations needs to improve. Developing clear guidelines and educating and training researchers in performing economic evaluations is necessary.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Informal Care Cost Category Direct Healthcare Cost National Health Insurance System 
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

Acknowledgements

This paper was written during K.S. Lee’s stay at the Department of Health Policy and Management and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment of the Erasmus University Rotterdam as a visiting professor. This work is supported by the Post-doctoral Fellowship Program of Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF). The comments of Frans Rutten and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper are gratefully acknowledged. The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, et al. Methods of economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ham C, Honigsbaum F. Priority setting and rationing health services. In: Saltman RB, Figueras J, Sakellarides S, editors. Critical challenges for health care reform in Europe. Philadelphia (PA): Open University Press, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanavos P, Trueman P, Bosilevac A. Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, The Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Autumn; 16 (4): 1179–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stolk EA, Brouwer WBF, Busschbach JJV. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 2002; 59 (1): 53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD. OECD reviews of health care systems — Korea, 2003: 29Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwon SM. Health care financing reform and the new single payer system in Korea: social solidarity or efficiency? Int Soc Secur Rev 2003; 56 (1): 75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang BM. What is achieved from the integration reform, merging multiple health insurance societies into a single payer in Korea? In: Symposium Proceeding for celebrating the first anniversary of National Health Insurance Corporation. 2002 [online]. Available (in Korean) from URL: http://www.nhic.or.kr/wbme/index.html/ [Accessed 2005 Mar 15]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon SM. Pharmaceutical reform and physician strikes: separation of drug prescribing and dispensing in Korea. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57 (3): 529–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim HJ, Chung WJ, Lee SG. Lessons from Korea’s pharmaceutical policy reform: the separation of medical institutions and pharmacies for outpatient care. Health Policy 2004; 68 (3): 267–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Health Insurance Review Agency. 2003 Annual Report of Nationwide Prescription Pattern Monitoring [online]. Available (in Korean) from URL: http://www.hira.or.kr/ [Accessed 2005 Mar 15]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ministry of Health and Welfare. Decision rules and criteria of new medical technologies. On the details of the article 14th of the ‘Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act’. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Korea. 2003. 9. 1. No 2003-47Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee TG. Current situation and ways for introduction the economic evaluation on the pharmaceuticals. International symposium on the Economic evaluation on pharmaceuticals of developed countries and implication to Korean health care system, 2003 (Korean): 1–22Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy 2000 Jul; 52 (3): 179–92Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rutten F. Economic evaluation and health care decision-making. Health Policy 1996 Jun; 36 (3): 215–29Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    http://medric.or.kr/ [Accessed 2004 Jun 14]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    http://www.richis.org/ [Accessed 2004 Jun 21]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    http://kiss.kstudy.com/ [Accessed 2004 Aug 24]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim JY, Kwon SM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the medication for osteoporosis. Korean J Health Policy Manage 2001; 11 (3): 71–88Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung KR, Moon OR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment in hypercholesterolemia. Korean J Health Policy Manage 1999; 9 (3): 70–94Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yun HR, Jung HY, Park HJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of proton pump inhibitors and ranitidine in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Korean J Med 2002; 62 (5): 504–12Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee SI, Jon MW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cervix cancer screening program in Korea. Korean J Health Promot Dis Prev 2003; 3 (1): 18–26Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    June KJ, Park JY. Cost-effectiveness analysis of home health care program for cerebrovascular accident patients. J Korean Community Nurs 2001; 12 (1): 22–31Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sung HR, Park TK, Choi DH, et al. The cost effective analysis of the routine tests in the staging evaluation of carcinoma of the cervix. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 34 (8): 1145–53Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yeom CH, Choi YS, Lee HL, et al. The comparison of the medical costs and quality of life in terminal cancer patients by the types of medical facilities. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2000; 21 (3): 332–43Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rob HJ, Lee SJ, Cho JY, et al. An analysis of cost-effective screening interval for HCC in Korean hepatitis B virus carriers. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2002; 23 (11): 1340–7Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cha YS, Khang YH, Lee MS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hyperlipidemia mass screening program in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 2002; 35 (2): 99–106Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yun HR, Corzillius M, Kim SY, et al. Korean cost-effectiveness analysis of NSAIDs, NSAIDs with co-treatments to prevent gastrointestinal toxicity, and COX-2 specific inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Korean J Med 2001; 60 (6: 574–88Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hong YS, Park HA, Cho NO. A study on the effectiveness of care of patients with Alzheimer’s disease according to residence arrangement and types of services. J Nurs Acad Soc 1996; 26 (4): 768–81Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park KS, Chung YK. A study on effectiveness of the hospitalbased home nursing care of the early discharged surgical patients and its cost analysis. J Nurs Acad Soc 1994; 24 (4): 545–56Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim JI, Yoon CK. A study on improvement of health centers’ function through cost-effectiveness analysis in Korea. J Health Policy Manage 1995; 5 (2): 70–103Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cho H, Moon SS, Jung KI, et al. A research study on 60 years old people: management of hypertension. J Korea Community Health Nurs Acad Soc 1996; 10 (1): 95–105Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oh HJ, Kim UH, Oh JK, et al. Comparison of cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for management of postmenopausal Korean women especially in BMD. J Korean Soc Menopause 2001; 7 (1): 11–22Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim CY, Kim SM, Hwang NM. Cost-benefit analysis of massive screening for inborn errors of metabolism in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 1999; 32 (3): 317–24Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Han EN, Yang BM, Lee EK. Cost-benefit analysis of clinical pharmacokinetic consultation service of theophylline. J Korean Soc Qual Assur Health Care 2000; 7 (2): 168–79Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shin YJ, Choi BY, Park JIB, et al. Cost-benefit analysis on rubella vaccination policy. Korean J Prev Med 1994; 27 (2): 337–65Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ro KK, Min KK, Cho SY. Cost-benefit analysis of the hepatitis b prevention program in Korea. Korean J Epidemiol 1990; 12 (2): 165–83Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chung HU, Ahn HS, Park HK, et al. Cost benefit analysis on the economic effect of the water fluoridation program in some areas of Cheong-Ju city. J Health Policy Manage 2003; 13 (1): 23–45Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ju YS, Ha MN, Han SH, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of back school program for occupational low back pain patients. Korean J Prev Med 1996; 29 (2): 347–58Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cho TR, Kim HJ. Performance of occupational health services by type of service. J Korean Acad Soc Ind Nurs 1995; 4: 5–29Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee TW, Ko IS. Cost-benefit analysis on community health practitioner. Korean Acad Nurs 2002; 32 (4): 435–46Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yoo IK, Won JU, Song IS, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a factory dispensary. Korean J Occup Environ Med 2001; 13 (2): 190–9Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Han YS, Park HY. Cost-effectiveness of PACS based on medical insurance coverage. J Korean Soc Med Inform 2000; 6 (3): 51–63Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jang HJ, Myeon JI. Cost-benefit analysis of the sharing system for electronic patients Records among healthcare institutions. J Korean Soc Med Inform 2001; 7 (2): 49–64Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chung WJ, Lee SH. Cost-benefit analysis of intemet-based prescription delivery system. J Health Policy Manage 2002; 12 (1): 54–83Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jee YK, Kim HJ, Park EC, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of mandatory prescription in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 2000; 33 (4): 484–94Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cho WJ, Kim MI. Analysis of cost reduction for women with a caesarean section receiving home care. J Nurs Query 2001; 10 (1): 68–88Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jang IS, Hwang NM. Analysis of services and cost in CVA patients by severity in hospital-based home health care. Korean Acad Nurs 2001; 31 (4): 619–30Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee TW, Lee WH, Kim MS. Comparison of the costs of care and nursing services for terminally ill patients receiving home hospice care in comparison to institutional care. J Korean Acad Nurs 2000; 30 (4): 1045–54Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee SW, Yang BM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of duodenal ulcer treatments. Korean Health Econ Rev 1998; 4: 69–88Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jung YH, Koh SJ. An estimation of economic costs of 5 major diseases. Health Welf Policy Forum 2003; 79 (5): 55–65Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim HJ, Park TK, Jee SH, et al. Analysis of socioeconomic costs of smoking in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 2001; 34 (3): 183–90Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jeong BG, Moon OR, Kim NS, et al. Socioeconomic costs of obesity for Korean adults. Korean J Prev Med 2002; 35 (1): 112Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kim EY, Yang BM. Economic evaluation of long-term care services. Korean Health Econ Rev 2002; 8 (2): 1–17Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kim SY, Yang BM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment. Korean Health Econ Rev 2000; 6 (1): 73–111Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lee NM, Kwon SM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer screening. Korean Health Econ Rev 2000; 6 (2): 143–71Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chung SK, Yang BM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hormone replacement therapies. Korean Health Econ Rev 2000; 6 (2): 173–201Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Park JY, Ko SK. Cost-benefit analysis of the community-based home healthcare program. Korean Health Econ Rev 2000; 6 (2): 203–45Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang BM, Ro BI, Lee TJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral antifugal agents used to treat dermatophytosis of toenails. Korean Health Econ Rev 2001; 7 (1): 67–93Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shon CM, Nho MR, Lee YH, et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in persons with hypercholesterolemia. J Korean Dietetic Assoc 2003; 9 (1): 32–9Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lee HY, Park EC, Park KD, et al. Economic value of the sirolimus eluting stent (CYPHERTM) in treating acute coronary heart disease. Korean J Prev Med 2003; 36 (4): 339–48Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Han DS, Park JY, Yun HR, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of colon cancer screening by colonoscopic examination in Korea. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 28: 1–8Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yang BM, Paik SW, Hahn OS, et al. Direct and indirect costs of hepatitis B in Korea. Korean Health Econ Rev 2000; 6 (2): 117–42Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Guyatt G, Drummond M, Feeny D, et al. Guidelines for the clinical and economic evaluation of health care technologies. Soc Sci Med 1986; 22 (4): 393–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Luce BR, Elixhauser A. Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6 (1): 57–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996 Aug 3; 313: 275–83Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gold MR, Siegel ES, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Severens JL, van der Wilt GJ. Economic evaluation of diagnostic tests: a review of published studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999 Summer; 15 (3): 480–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Winter; 16 (1): 111–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brouwer WB, Rutten FF, Koopmanschap MA. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care, merging theory with practice. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zarnke KB, Levine MA, O’Brien BJ. Cost-benefit analyses in the health-care literature: don’t judge a study by its label. J Clin Epidemiol 1997 Jul; 50 (7): 813–22Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Powe NR, Griffiths RI. The clinical-economic trial: promise, problems, and challenges. Control Clin Trials 1995 Dec; 16 (6): 377–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vissers JM. Health care management modelling: a process perspective. Health Care Manag Sci 1998 Oct; 1 (2): 77–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Halpern MT, McKenna M, Hutton J. Modeling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1998 Dec; 7 (8): 741–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sheldon TA. Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 1996 Jan-Feb; 5 (1): 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Davidoff AJ, Powe NR. The role of perspective in defining economic measures for the evaluation of medical technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996 Winter; 12 (1): 9–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kemick D. Costing interventions in primary care. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Standardisation of costs: the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (7): 443–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kim CY, Lee IS, Kang GW, et al. Magnitude of patients’ costs sharing [in Korean]. J Health Policy Manage 1999; 9 (4): 1–14Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    The Institute of Health Economics. A national list of provincial costs for health care, 1997/8 [online]. Available from URL: http:/www.ihe.ca/ [Accessed 2004 Feb 20]Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jacobs P, Roos NP. Standard cost lists for healthcare in Canada: issues in validity and inter-provincial consolidation. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Jun; 15 (6: 551–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Oostenbrink JB, Buijs-Van der Woude T, van Agthoven M, et al. Unit costs of inpatient hospital days. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (4): 263–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Manual of resource items and their associated costs. Canberra. 2002. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/pbs/pubs/manual [Accessed 2004 Feb 10]Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997 Sep-Oct; 6 (5): 511–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995 Jun; 14 (2): 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gerard K, Smoker I, Seymour J. Raising the quality of costutility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn. Health Policy 1999; 46 (3): 217–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Graves N, Walker D, Raine R, et al. Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: no amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods. Health Econ 2002 Dec; 11 (8): 735–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 2002; 287: 2809–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Drummond M, McGuire A, editor. Economic evaluation in health care, merging theory with practice. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    ISPOR. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org [Accessed 2005 May 25]Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WBF, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (17): 1097–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving? Med Decis Making 1997; 17 (4): 402–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun-Sei Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Werner B. F. Brouwer
    • 1
  • Sang-Il Lee
    • 3
  • Hye-Won Koo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and Management and Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Preventive MedicineKonkuk University Chungju CampusChungju-si, Chungbuk-doThe Republic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Preventive Medicine, College of MedicineUniversity of UlsanThe Republic of Korea

Personalised recommendations