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
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 11/2016

01-11-2016 | Editorial

From Good to Better: New Dutch Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare

Authors: Matthijs Versteegh, Saskia Knies, Werner Brouwer

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

Many countries have national guidelines for performing economic evaluations in healthcare.1 These guidelines should ensure the comparability and quality of such evaluations, which should facilitate making well informed policy decisions regarding reimbursement of interventions. Given the developments in both the methodology and policy context of economic evaluation of healthcare interventions, these guidelines require periodical revision. Recently, the Dutch National Health Care Institute issued new guidance for economic evaluations in healthcare [1]. The new guidelines update and replace three separately published previous guidelines: those for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (latest version 2006), outcomes research (latest version 2008) as well as the Dutch costing manual (latest version 2010). In this editorial, we highlight the distinguishing features of the new Dutch guidelines. Moreover, we highlight which developments, in our opinion, are desirable in coming updates, but are still in development or controversial. …
Footnotes
1
For an overview of guidelines around the world visit http://​www.​ispor.​org/​PEguidelines/​index.​asp.
 
2
Questionnaires for measuring and valuing productivity costs and informal care can be found here: http://​www.​imta.​nl/​questionnaires.
 
3
The tool can also be found here: http://​www.​imta.​nl/​paid.
 
Literature
1.
Nederland Zorginstituut. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.
2.
Krol M, Brouwer W. How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):335–44.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34(9):1005–10.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(6):446–54.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14(2):171–89.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bouwmans C, Krol M, Severens H, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire: a standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value in Health. 2015;18(6):753–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Brouwer W. How to include informal care in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(12):1105–19.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SM, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–52.CrossRef
10.
Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20(1):2–15.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Brouwer WB, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, Rutten FF. Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. BMJ. 2005;331(7514):446–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Ramos IC, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Al MJ. The role of value-of-information analysis in a health care research priority setting a theoretical case study. Med Decis Making. 2012;33(4):472–89.CrossRef
13.
Al M, Bindels J, Corro Ramos I, Feenstra T, Grutters J, Joore M, et al. Onzekerheid en Value of Information (VOI). Report. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.
14.
Morton A, Adler A, Briggs A, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K, Fischer A, et al. Unrelated future costs and unrelated future benefits: reflections on NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Health Econ. 2016;25(8):933–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rappange DR, van Baal PH, van Exel N, Job A, Feenstra TL, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Unrelated medical costs in Life-Years gained. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(10):815–30.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):33–64.CrossRefPubMed
17.
van Baal P, Meltzer D, Brouwer W. Future costs, fixed healthcare budgets, and the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):237–48.CrossRefPubMed
18.
van Baal PH, Wong A, Slobbe LC, Polder JJ, Brouwer WB, de Wit GA. Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):175–87.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):874–82.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lorgelly PK. Choice of outcome measure in an economic evaluation: a potential role for the capability approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):849–55.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Nyman JA. Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost–utility analysis? Health Econ. 2004;13(5):417–27.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gandjour A. Consumption costs and earnings during added years of life-a reply to Nyman. Health Econ. 2006;15(3):315–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Versteegh MM, Brouwer WBF. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Brouwer WB, Van Exel N, Baltussen RM, Rutten FF. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar—or is it? Value Health. 2006;9(5):341–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
From Good to Better: New Dutch Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare
Authors
Matthijs Versteegh
Saskia Knies
Werner Brouwer
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0431-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

PharmacoEconomics 11/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Competition Between Biosimilars and Patented Biologics: Learning from European and Japanese Experience

Review Article

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Characterised Chondrocyte Implantation for Treatment of Cartilage Defects of the Knee in the UK

Original Research Article

Impact on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of Using Alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov Model for Multiple Sclerosis

Systematic Review

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Large Sample Studies

Letter to the Editor

Discretely Integrated Condition Event Simulation for Pharmacoeconomics