@article{12847d7225d0479e81096ec1f9fb1390,
title = "Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group",
abstract = "Objective: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.Methods: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.Conclusion: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.",
keywords = "benefit-risk assessment, criteria, discrete-choice experiments, economics, elicitation methods, european regulatory, health preferences, health technology assessment, interventions, marketing authorization, patient preferences, preference research, pricing, quantitative preference data, reimbursement, stakeholder preferences, technology-assessment, European regulatory, ELICITATION METHODS, DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENTS, INTERVENTIONS, CRITERIA, PATIENT PREFERENCES, TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT, ECONOMICS",
author = "K. Marsh and {van Til}, J.A. and E. Molsen-David and C. Juhnke and N. Hawken and E.M. Oehrlein and Y.C. Choi and A. Duenas and W. Greiner and K. Haas and M. Hiligsmann and K.S. Hockley and I. Ivlev and F. Liu and J. Ostermann and T. Poder and J.L. Poon and A. Muehlbacher",
note = "Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all the experts and agency staff who provided input into the study. This input is detailed in Supplementary Materials 2. Agency staff who participated in the survey, and who were comfortable being acknowledged were: Francis Arickx, Susanna Axelsson, Antje Behring, Nadine Berndt, Elisaet Constantinou, Tomas Dolezal, Gotfried Endel, Ilko Getov, Salah Ghabri, Emmanuel Gim?nez, Matej Haluska, Kystyna Hviding, Saskia Knies, Douglas Lundin, Sylvana Magrin Sammut, Marcella Marletta, Sarah Mostardt, Julian Perelman, Francesco Pignatti, Lauge Rasmussen, Madina Saidj, Jan Svihovec, Andrius Vagoras, Leonor Varela Lema. Other experts who provided input were: Rob Baltussen, D?ra Endrei, Andreas Gerber, Maarten IJzerman, Georgi Iskrov, Zoltan Kalo, Matej Linke, Barry Luke, Gerg? Mer?sz, Maciej Niewada, Sorin Paveliu, Panagiotis Petrou, Carme Pinyol, Vladimir Rogalewicz, Lars Sandman, Mark Sculpher, Gedske Thomsen, and Anna Zawada. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the following ISPOR members who provided written reviews of this report: John Bridges, Warren Cowell, Benjamin Craig, Saibel Das, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, Rosanne Janssens, Ruixuan Jiang, Reed Johnson, Samer Kharroubi, Aishwarya Kulkarni, Siu Hing Lo, Andrew Lloyd, Pedro Plans-Rubio, Mohammed Tarfa, Nayanabhirama Udupa, and Eline van Overbeeke. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Oehrlein is an employee of the National Health Council (NHC), a membership organization that receives dues and sponsorships from a variety of funders, both members and sponsors. Please see the NHC website for the list of both members and sponsors ( http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org). Dr Hiligsmann reported receiving grants from Bayer, Amgen, and Radius Health outside the submitted work. Dr Hockley reported receiving personal fees from Amgen outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support: The study received no financial support. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2019.11.009",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "831--841",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "7",
}