Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2018

Open Access 01-09-2018 | Original Paper

Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study

Authors: Lisanne I. van Lier, Judith E. Bosmans, Hein P. J. van Hout, Lidwine B. Mokkink, Wilbert B. van den Hout, G. Ardine de Wit, Carmen D. Dirksen, Henk L. G. R. Nies, Cees M. P. M. Hertogh, Henriëtte G. van der Roest

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Differences between country-specific guidelines for economic evaluations complicate the execution of international economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations using a Delphi procedure.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify European guidelines on the execution of economic evaluations or costing studies as part of economic evaluations. Guideline recommendations were extracted by two independent reviewers and formed the basis for the first round of the Delphi study, which was conducted among European health economic experts. During three written rounds, consensus (agreement of 67% or higher) was sought on items concerning the identification, measurement and valuation of costs.

Results

Recommendations from 18 guidelines were extracted. Consensus among 26 panellists from 17 European countries was reached on 61 of 68 items. The recommendations from the Delphi study are to adopt a societal perspective, to use patient report for measuring resource use and lost productivity, to value both constructs with use of country-specific standardized/unit costs and to use country-specific discounting rates.

Conclusion

This study provides consensus-based cross-European recommendations on how to measure and value resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations. These recommendations are expected to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in executing and appraising economic evaluations performed in international contexts.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: projecting OECD health and long-term care expenditures. What are the main drivers? Economics Department working papers no. 477. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris (2006)
2.
World Health Organization: The European health report 2009: health and health systems. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen (2010)
3.
Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)
4.
Hjelmgren, J., Berggren, F., Andersson, F.: Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Heal. 4, 225–250 (2001)CrossRef
5.
Cleemput, I., Neyt, M., Sande, S. Van De, Thiry, N.: Belgische richtlijnen voor economische evaluaties en budget impact analyses: tweede editie. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). KCE Report 183A. D/2012/10.273/52. (2012)
6.
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care : General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne (2009)
7.
Norwegian Medicines Agency: Guidelines on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses. Norwegian Medicines Agency, Oslo (2012)
8.
Da Silva, E.A., Pinto, C.G., Sampaio, C., Pereira, J.A., Drummond, M., Trindade, R.: Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies. INFARMED 18, 728–729 (1998)
9.
Agency for Health Technology Assessment: Guidelines for Conducting health technology assessment (HTA). Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Warsaw (2009)
10.
Hakkaart-van Roijen, L., Tan, S.S., Bouwmans, C.A.M.: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. College voor Zorgverzekeringen, Diemen (2010)
11.
Granados, A., Jonsson, E., Banta, H.D., Bero, L., Bonair, A., Cochet, C., et al.: EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 13, 220–286 (1997)CrossRefPubMed
12.
Banta, D., Oortwijn, W.: Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten. 10, 29–37 (2001)
13.
Kristensen, F.B., Makela, M., Neikter, S.A., Rehnqvist, N., Haheim, L.L., Morland, B., et al.: European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA: planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Heal Care. 25, 107–116 (2009)CrossRef
14.
Knapp, M., Windmeijer, F., Brown, J., Kontodimas, S., Tzivelekis, S.: Cost-utility analysis of treatment with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic treatments in patients with schizophrenia in the panEuropean SOHO study. PharmacoEconomics. 26, 341–358 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
15.
Mathes, T., Jacobs, E., Morfeld, J.C., Pieper, D.: Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations—a comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 13, 371 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D.: The delphi method as a research tool: an example design considerations and applications. Inf Manag. 42, 15–29 (2004)CrossRef
17.
Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: Introduction. In: Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1975)
18.
Ruger, J.R., Reiff, M.A.: A checklist for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of microcosting studies in health care: protocol development. JMIR Res Protoc. 5(4), 195 (2016)CrossRef
19.
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D.: ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines-CHEERS good reporting practices task force: consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 16(2), 231–250 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
20.
Uegaki, K., de Bruijne, M.C., Anema, J.R., van der Beek, A.J., van Tulder, M.W., van Mechelen, W.: Consensus-based findings and recommendations for estimating the costs of health-related productivity loss from a company’s perspective. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 33(2), 122–130 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P.W., Knol, D.L., et al.: International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 737–745 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
23.
Chiarotto, A., Deyo, R.A., Terwee, C.B., Boers, M., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T.P., et al.: Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur. Spine J. 24, 1127–1142 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
24.
Schull, M.J., Guttmann, A., Leaver, C.A., Vermeulen, M., Hatcher, C.M., Rowe, B.H., et al.: Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators. Can J Emerg Med. 13(5), 300–309 (2011)
25.
26.
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)
27.
28.
Walter, E., Zehetmayr, S.: Guidelines on health economic evaluation—consensus paper. Institute for Pharmaeconomic Research, Vienna (2006)
29.
30.
Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment: The Croatian guideline for health technology assessment process and reporting. Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Zagreb (2011)
31.
Kristensen, F.B., Sigmund, H. (eds.): Health technology assessment handbook Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. National Board of Health (2007)
32.
Lääkkeiden Hintalautakunta Läkemedelsprisnämden: Preparing a health economic evaluation to be attached to the application for reimbursement status and wholesale price for a medicinal product. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board, Helsinki (2013)
33.
Haute Autorité de Santé: Choices in methods for economic evaluation. Haute Autorité de Santé, Saint-Denis La Plaine (2012)
34.
Szende, Á., Mogyorósy, Z., Muszbek, N., Nagy, J., Pallos, G., Dózsa, C.: Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in hungary: a hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur J Heal Econ. 3, 196–206 (2002)CrossRef
35.
Ministry of Health of Hungary: Az emberi Eroforrások Minisztériuma szakmai irányelve az egészség-gazdaságtani elemzések készítéséhez (2013)
36.
Health Information and Quality Authority: Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland (2010)
37.
Capri, S., Ceci, A., Terranova, L., Merlo, F., Mantovani, L.: Guidelines for economic evaluations in italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf. J. 35, 189–201 (2001)CrossRef
38.
López-Bastida, J., Oliva, J., Antoñanzas, F., García-Altés, A., Gisbert, R., Mar, J., et al.: Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur. J. Heal Econ. 11, 513–520 (2010)CrossRef
39.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Board: General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2) (2003)
40.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 (2013)
41.
Rappange, D.R., Van Baal, P.H., van Excel, N.J., Feenstra, T.L., Rutten, F.F., Brouwer, W.B.: Unrelated medical costs in life years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions? PharmacoEconomics. 26, 815–830 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
42.
Van Baal, P., Meltzer, D.: Future costs, fixed healthcare budgets, and the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 25, 237–248 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study
Authors
Lisanne I. van Lier
Judith E. Bosmans
Hein P. J. van Hout
Lidwine B. Mokkink
Wilbert B. van den Hout
G. Ardine de Wit
Carmen D. Dirksen
Henk L. G. R. Nies
Cees M. P. M. Hertogh
Henriëtte G. van der Roest
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0947-x

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Original Paper

Ebola in the Netherlands, 2014–2015: costs of preparedness and response

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review

Original Paper

Health care service utilization of documented and undocumented hired farmworkers in the U.S.

Original Paper

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of plant sterol or stanol-enriched functional foods as a primary prevention strategy for people with cardiovascular disease risk in England: a modeling study

Editorial

EMA Priority Medicines scheme (PRIME): will more paying-for-performance agreements be needed due to immature data?