Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:43:55.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BELGIAN GUIDELINES FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: SECOND EDITION

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Nancy Thiry ,
Mattias Neyt ,
Stefaan Van De Sande  and
Irina Cleemput
Nancy Thiry
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), [email protected]
Mattias Neyt
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), [email protected]
Stefaan Van De Sande
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), [email protected]
Irina Cleemput
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present the updated methodological guidelines for economic evaluations of healthcare interventions (drugs, medical devices, and other interventions) in Belgium.

Methods: The update of the guidelines was performed by three Belgian health economists following feedback from users of the former guidelines and personal experience. The updated guidelines were discussed with a multidisciplinary team consisting of other health economists, assessors of reimbursement request files, representatives of Belgian databases and representatives of the drugs and medical devices industry. The final document was validated by three external validators that were not involved in the previous discussions.

Results: The guidelines give methodological guidance for the following components of an economic evaluation: literature review, perspective of the evaluation, definition of the target population, choice of the comparator, analytic technique and study design, calculation of costs, valuation of outcomes, definition of the time horizon, modeling, handling uncertainty and discounting. We present a reference case that can be considered as the minimal requirement for Belgian economic evaluations of health interventions.

Conclusions: These guidelines will improve the methodological quality, transparency and uniformity of the economic evaluations performed in Belgium. The guidelines will also provide support to the researchers and assessors performing or evaluating economic evaluations.

Keywords

GuidelinesEconomic evaluationsBelgiumReimbursement
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 601 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Art 4 and 6 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 2001 laying down the procedures, time and conditions for the intervention of the compulsory health insurance benefits and the cost of pharmaceutical specialties (B.S. - M.B. 29/12/2001). http://www.riziv.fgov.be/fr/publications/Pages/reglementation-medication.aspx (access date February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
2. Chapter III of the law of 14 July 1994 on the compulsory insurance of healthcare (B.S. - M.B. 27/08/1994). http://www.riziv.fgov.be/fr/publications/Pages/reglementation-medication.aspx (access date February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
3. Cleemput, I, Van Wilder, P, Vrijens, F, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Belgium. In: KCE Reports, vol. 78C. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, 2008. https://kce.fgov.be/publication/report/guidelines-for-pharmacoeconomic-evaluations-in-belgium (accessed February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
4. Cleemput, I, Neyt, M, Van de Sande, S, Thiry, N. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: Second edition. In: KCE Report, vol. 183C. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, 2012. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_183C_economic_evaluations_second_edition_0.pdf (accessed February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
5. Haute Autorité de Santé: Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. Saint-Denis La Plaine, 2011. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/guide_methodo_vf.pdf (access February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
6. College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2006.Google Scholar
7. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Working paper cost estimation (Version 1.0). Cologne: IQWiG; 2009.Google Scholar
8. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Finding studies for systematic reviews: A resource list for researchers. 2012. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/finding_studies_systematic_reviews.htm (accessed December 2012).Google Scholar
9. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Information resources in health economics. 2012. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/econ.htm (accessed December 2012).Google Scholar
10. Rothwell, P. External validity of randomized controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.Google Scholar
11. Neyt, M, Cleemput, I, Thiry, N, De Laet, C. Calculating an intervention's cost-effectiveness for the real-world target population: The potential of combining strengths of both RCTs and observational data. Health Policy. 2012;106:207–210.Google Scholar
12. Neyt, M, Van Brabandt, H. The importance of the comparator in economic evaluations: Working on the efficiency frontier. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29:913–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Briggs, A, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
14. Goeree, R, O’Brien, B, Hunt, R, et al. Economic evaluation of long-term management strategies for erosive oesophagitis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;16:679–697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Bucher, H, Guyatt, G, Griffith, L, Walter, S. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683–691.Google Scholar
16. Lim, E, Ali, Z, Ali, A, et al. Indirect comparison meta-analysis of aspirin therapy after coronary surgery. BMJ. 2003;327:1309.Google Scholar
17. Song, F, Altman, D, Glenny, A, Deeks, J. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: Empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326:472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Van De Sande, S, De Wachter, D, Swartenbroekx, N, et al. Inventory of health care databases. In: KCE Reports, vol. 30B. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, 2006. https://kce.fgov.be/fr/publication/report/inventaire-des-bases-de-données-de-soins-de-santé (accessed February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
19. FPS Economy SMEs, Self-Employed and Energy. Statistics Belgium. Consumer price index. http://economie.fgov.be/en/statistics/figures/economy/consumer_price_index/ Google Scholar
20. National Institute of Statistics. Statistics Belgium. http://www.statbel.fgov.be (accessed December 2012).Google Scholar
21. Cleemput, I. A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:205–213.Google Scholar
22. Weinstein, M, O’Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. Principles of good practice of decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation. Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Caro, J, Briggs, A, Siebert, U, et al. Modeling good research practices - overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803.Google Scholar
24. World Health Organisation: WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. 2008. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IVB_08.14_eng.pdf (accessed February 12, 2015).Google Scholar
25. Gray, A, Clarke, P, Wolstenholme, J, Wordsworth, S. Applied methods of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Handbooks in health economic evaluation, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
26. le Polain, M, Franken, M, Koopmanschap, M, Cleemput, I. Drug reimbursement systems: International comparison and policy recommendations. In: KCE Reports, vol. 147C. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, 2010. https://kce.fgov.be/publication/report/drug-reimbursement-systems-international-comparison-and-policy-recommendations-0 (accessed February 12, 2015).Google Scholar