Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more ‘innovation-friendly’ than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?
Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellenc...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
30 Dec 2018
|
| In: |
Expert review of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research
Year: 2019, Volume: 19, Issue: 4, Pages: 453-462 |
| ISSN: | 1744-8379 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14737167.2019.1559732 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2019.1559732 Verlag: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2019.1559732 
|
| Author Notes: | Ramon Schaefer & Michael Schlander |
| Summary: | Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Both agencies may be considered as exemplars for the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine and the logic of cost-effectiveness, respectively.Methods: We extracted data from all publically available G-BA appraisals until April 2015, as well as all NICE single technology appraisals completed during this period. We compared HTA results for matched condition-intervention pairs by G-BA and NICE, and explored other factors including therapeutic area, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Results: NICE issued guidance for 88 technologies (125 subgroups) and recommended 67/88 technologies (99/125 subgroups). G-BA completed 105 appraisals (226 subgroups) and determined additional benefit for 64/105 appraisals (90/226 subgroups). We identified 37 matched pairs; for 24/37 drugs, evaluations diverged. NICE recommended 78% (29/37) of technologies appraised, whereas G-BA confirmed additional benefit for 57% (21/37) only (p < 0.05).Conclusions: NICE evaluates new drugs more favorably than G-BA. However, our analysis suggests differences by therapeutic area. Results indicate that different methods are associated with systematic differences in HTA outcomes. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 26.11.2019 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1744-8379 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14737167.2019.1559732 |