↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s87462
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A Griffiths, Janek K Hendrich, Samuel DR Stoddart, Sean CM Walsh

Abstract

In health technology assessment (HTA) agencies where cost-effectiveness plays a role in decision-making, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold is often used to inform reimbursement decisions. The acceptance of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold was assessed across different agencies and across indications, in order to inform future reimbursement submissions. All HTA appraisals from May 2000 to May 2014 from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) were assessed. Multiple technology appraisals, resubmissions, vaccination programs, and requests for advice were excluded. Submissions not reporting an ICER, or for which an ICER could not be determined were also excluded. The remaining appraisals were reviewed, and the submitted ICER, recommendation, and reasoning behind the recommendation were extracted. NICE recommended the highest proportion of submissions with ICERs higher than the threshold (34% accepted without restrictions; 20% with restrictions), followed by PBAC (16% accepted without restrictions; 4% with restrictions), SMC (11% accepted without restrictions; 14% accepted with restrictions), and CADTH (0% accepted without restrictions; 26% with restrictions). Overall, the majority of higher-than-threshold ICER submissions were classified into the "malignant disease and immunosuppression" therapeutic category; however, there was no notable variation in acceptance rates by disease area. Reasons for accepting submissions reporting ICERs above the threshold included high clinical benefit over the standard of care, and addressing an unmet therapeutic need. Acceptance of submissions with higher-than-threshold ICERs varied by HTA agency and was not significantly influenced by disease category. Such submissions must be accompanied by robust, concrete, and transparent evidence in order to achieve patient access.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 15%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 11%
Decision Sciences 3 4%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 11 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#446
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,430
of 276,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,517 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.