Priority setting for pharmaceuticals

Authorities in a number of countries rely increasingly on cost-effectiveness analysis to determine reimbursement status or clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals. This study compared the use of health economic evidence across five reimbursement committees (Australia, Ontario and British Columbia in Canada, Finland, and France) and one clinical guidance committee (England and Wales). Health economic evidence was found to support decision making, although cost-effectiveness is less important in some identifiable situations. Since the relative importance of cost-effectiveness varies, it will be difficult to implement a single explicit threshold. Further research may make patterns of decision making, distributional concerns, and the importance of different criteria more transparent, which would help to narrow the gap between the theory and practice of health economic evaluations. While the use of health economic evidence and the outcome of decision making are similar across committees, there is presently only limited knowledge to what extent prescribing patterns are influenced by decisions.