Skip to main content
Log in

Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from The Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since 1997, in order for a new drug to obtain its price and reimbursement in Italy, the negotiation between authorities and the pharmaceutical industry must include an economic evaluation. The economic evaluation study leads to price and reimbursement negotiations together with such other requirements as the price of the new drug in other countries, the impact on the domestic market in terms of public pharmaceutical expenditure, and the effects on the national economy (employment and investments).

In response to the need to set methodological standards for the economic evaluation of drugs a group of about 40 experts (the Italian Group for Pharmacoeconomic Studies) made up of representatives of the regulatory authorities and ministries, academia, and the industry prepared recommendations concerning the methodology and the presentation of pharmacoeconomic studies. The principles were intensively reviewed and discussed during a number of workshops and meetings throughout one year, and then finally and officially presented to the regulatory authorities. The elements which must be contained in each study submitted to the authorities are briefly described in this paper, considering the main theoretical and regulatory contributions found in the literature.

In particular, the economic analyses suggested are cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, and they must be applied from the points of view of both society and the Italian National Health Service. Even though pragmatic economic-clinical trials are preferred, given the difficulties in releasing these kinds of studies for drugs which have just been authorized, the use of models is suggested when satisfying a series of requirements (the reproducibility of the results by the regulatory commission, detailed description of the methodology and the intermediate results, etc.). Preference is given to microcosting, that is, cost measurement performed at the health care provider level (eg, hospitals), from which representative data at the national level can be obtained. In terms of the presentation of an economic evaluation, a synthesis of the study must be prepared on the basis of a detailed list of issues in order to facilitate evaluation of the study by the regulatory authorities. The approach followed by the Italian Group for Pharmacoeconomic Studies is based on the belief that only the recommendations prepared with the active contributions of all subjects interested in the economic evaluation of drugs are likely to be efficiently applied and disseminated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. CIPE, Inter-Ministerial Committee for Economic Planning. Identifying criteria for contracting on the price of innovative medicines. Decree of January 30, 1997. Official Gazette. May 3, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Joint Government/Pharmaceutical Industry Working Party. UK guidance on good practice in the conduct of economic evaluation of medicines. Br J Med Econ. 1994;7:63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rovira J, Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programs: a Spanish proposal for methodological standardization. Pharmacoecon. 1995;7:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Collège des Economistes de la Santé. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmaco-economic studies. CES. April 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alban A, Keiding H, Søgaard J. Guidelines for Socioeconomic Analyses of Pharmaceuticals. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Health, March 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alves da Silva E, Gouveia Pinto C, Sampaio C, et al. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies of Medications. Lisbon: INFARMED, November 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines. Draft. Pharma Pricing Review. 1999;4:66–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mishan EJ. Cost-benefit analysis. 4th ed. London: Unwin Hyman; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kaldor N. Welfare propositions of economic and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic J. 1939;49:549–552.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hicks JR. The foundation of welfare economics. Economic J. 1939;49:696–712.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Drug Benefit Research. 1996;8:28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maynard A. Economic evaluation techniques in healthcare. Reinventing the wheel? Pharmacoecon. 1997;2:115–118.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Freemantle N, Drummond M. Should clinical trials with concurrent economic analyses be blinded? JAMA. 1997;277:63–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an avoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217–227.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7:561–573.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. ICH. Consensus Conference. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; January 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, Ineveld van BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14:171–189.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ. 1997;16:249–255.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluation. Pharmacoecon. 1998;13:1–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Manual of Resource Items and their Associated Costs. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1998;7:1–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Keeler EB, Cretin S. Discounting of life-saving and other nonmonetary effects. Manage Sci. 1983;29: 300–306.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lipscomb J. Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 1989;27:S233–253.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Viscusi WK, Moore M. Rates of time preference and validation of the duration of life. J Public Econ. 1989;38:297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Parsonage M, Neuburger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ. 1992;1:71–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krahn M, Gafni A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Med Care. 1993;31:403–418.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Olsen JA. On what basis should health be discounted? J Health Econ. 1993;12:39–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lipscomb J. Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 1996;34:DS119–123.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Johannesson M. On the discounting of gained life-years in cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8:359–364.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gafni A. Time in health: can we measure individuals’ “pure time preference”? Med Decision Making. 1995;32:31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  36. O’Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, et al. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care. 1994;32:150–163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its boot-straps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327–340.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309–319.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wakker P, Klaassen M. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1995;4:373–382.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ. 1996;5:297–305.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C. Statistical inference for cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1997;6:229–242.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Briggs A, Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Econ. 1995;4:355–371.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Br Med J. 1996;313:275–283.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Jefferson TO, Smith R, Yee Y, et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and the Lancet. JAMA. 1998;280:275–277.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Capri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Capri, S., Ceci, A., Terranova, L. et al. Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from The Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 189–201 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500122

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500122

Key Words

Navigation