Abstract
The first version of the Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation was published by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) in 2006. Since the introduction of the first version, domestic experience with the application of the recommendations has accumulated, and methodologies in certain areas have progressed considerably. Based on these experiences, HIRA initiated a guidelines revision project to address the need for revisions. The purpose of this study is to share the process used to complete these guideline revisions and to provide the contents of the revised guidelines. In developing the current revision, meetings with the advisory committee and working-level meetings with pharmaceutical companies were held several times to reach as much of a consensus as possible, and the results of a survey of pharmaceutical companies and decision makers regarding the existing guidelines were considered. The second version of the guidelines clarified the level of data requirement (‘must’, ‘recommended’, ‘preferred’) based on the data availability, the information needs of the decision makers and the strength of the evidence. The recommended perspective economic studies should take has been modified and additional guidance has been provided on QALY measurement. Manuals for systematic reviews and indirect comparisons have been published, and a standardized reporting format for expert opinions has been added. Sections on preferred methods for evaluations, sensitivity analysis, modelling and time horizon have been elucidated. The revised guidelines clarify the expression of the recommendations, making them more user-friendly, and provide more specific guidance to improve the quality and comparability across submissions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bae EY, Lee EK. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines and their implementation in the Positive List System in South Korea. Value Health. 2009;12:S36–41.
Yang BM, Bae EY, Kim JH. Economic evaluation and pharmaceutical reimbursement reform in South Korea’s National Health Insurance. Health Affairs. 2008;27(1):179–87.
Garrison LP, Mansley EC, Abbott TA, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report: part II. Value Health. 2010;13(1):8–13.
Hay JW, Smeeding J, Carroll NV, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report: part I. Value Health. 2010;13(1):3–7.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2011.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/?domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459. Accessed 21 Mar 2011.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government; 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/AECB791C29482920CA25724400188EDB/$File/PBAC4.3.2.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2011.
Guidelines for economic evaluation for pharmaceuticals: second version. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2011.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Country-specific pharmacoeconomic guidelines. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/COUNTRYSPECIFIC.asp. Accessed 21 Mar 2011.
Guidelines for economic evaluation for pharmaceuticals: first version. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2006.
Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Medical Decision Making. 1999;19(4):371–7.
Rappange DR, van Baal PHM, van Exel NJA, et al. Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(10):815–30.
Garber AM, Phelps CE. Future costs and the future of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):819–21.
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276(15):1253–8.
Bae SJ, Lee SO, Choi SE, et al. Development of 2nd version of Korean pharmacoeconomic guideline [report; in Korean]. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2011.
Neumann PJ. Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl. 1):S28–32.
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Methods for health economic evaluation. Cologne: IQWiG; 2009. http://www.iqwig.de/index.736.en.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2011.
Mitchell AS, Viney R. Meeting the information needs of a national drug payer: aspirations of the guidelines from Australia. Drug Dev Res. 2010;71(8):463–9.
Brouwer WB, Van Exel NJ, Baltussen RM, et al. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar—or is it? Value Health. 2006;9(5):341–7.
Collège des Économistes de la Santé. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. Paris: CES; 2004. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/France_Guidelines_HE_Evaluation.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2011.
Dutch Health Care Insurance Board. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: CVZ; 2006. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesNLupdated2006.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2011.
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland. Decree of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health on applications and price notifications made to the Pharmaceutical Pricing Board: guidelines for preparing a health economic evaluation [Appendix]. Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; 2009. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/GuidelinesinFinland_EnglishVersion.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2011.
López-Bastida J, Oliva J, AntoAanzas F, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(5):513–20.
Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, et al. The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(4):297–310.
Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability? Health Econ. 2010;19(2):125–9.
King JT, Styn MA, Tsevat J, et al. “Perfect health” versus “disease free”: the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(3):212–25.
Chancellor J, Coyle D, Drummond MF. Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible? Qual Life Res. 1997;6(2):159–68.
Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1162–70.
Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health. 2009;12:S10–5.
Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, et al. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl. 1):S31–5.
Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, et al. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(1):13–35.
Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):151–65.
Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Economics. 1999;8(1):41–51.
Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl. 1):S5–9.
Kang EJ, Shin HS, Park HJ, et al. Valuing health states of the Korean EQ-5D using time trade-off [in Korean]. Kor J Health Econ Policy. 2006;12(2):19–43.
Jo MW, Yun SC, Lee SI. Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with the time trade-off method in South Korea. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1186–9.
Lee Y-K, Nam H-S, Chuang L-H, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1187–93.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–200.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.
Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, et al. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(8):673–85.
Economics Sub-Committee, Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee. Report of the Indirect Comparisons Working Group to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: assessing indirect comparisons. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government; 2010. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/B11E8EF19B358E39CA25754B000A9C07/$File/ICWG%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2011.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: CADTH; 2009. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/H0462_itc_tr_e.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2011.
Manual for systematic reviews. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2011.
Manual for indirect comparison. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2011.
Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.
Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2007;25(5):365–84.
Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res. 1980;28(1):206–24.
Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(1):3–20.
Laupacis A. Economic evaluations in the Canadian Common Drug Review. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(11):1157–62.
Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.
Yim EY, Lim SH, Oh MJ, et al. Assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluations submitted for reimbursement in Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(1 Suppl.):S104–10.
Mitka M. Amid lingering questions, FDA reprieves LDL cholesterol-lowering medication. JAMA. 2009;301(8):813–5.
Acknowledgments
This study has been financially supported by HIRA in Seoul, The Republic of Korea. SeungJin Bae led the Guideline Development Team at HIRA. SooOk Lee and Sunmee Jang were members of the team, both of whom were employed by HIRA. Eun Young Bae has served as a member of the DREC since 2011 and the economic subcommittee of the DREC since 2009, and was the principal investigator of the first version of the Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation.
Conflicts of interest
No author has conflicts of interest or financial arrangements that could have potentially influenced the described research.
Author contributions
All authors participated in the design of the study. SeungJin Bae and SooOk Lee reviewed the submitted dossiers, conducted the survey and did the literature review. SeungJin Bae and Eun Young Bae drafted the manuscript. Sunmee Jang critically edited and commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. SeungJin Bae is the guarantor for the overall content of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, S., Lee, S., Bae, E.Y. et al. Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version). PharmacoEconomics 31, 257–267 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0021-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0021-6