Allocation of Resources for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in Rare Diseases
,
Abstract
Background: The health system is facing limited financial resources in all countries. Resource allocation is one of the tasks of the health system. Prioritizing interventions is one of the strategies that can help health policymakers in allocating financial resources. Rare diseases require more attention than other diseases due to their high cost and complex treatments. The countries use different policies to determine the effectiveness of interventions in the field of rare diseases. The purpose of this study is to refer to some policies in the field of allocating resources for rare diseases and to explain the importance of determining the threshold of cost-effectiveness for rare diseases in Iran.
Methods: This research is a review study. First, a study was conducted on how to prioritize health interventions in the world and the thresholds of cost-effectiveness in different countries. Articles related to the research topic were then searched in accessible databases in Iran such as SID, Google Scholar and Medline. Finally, the obtained articles were screened and analyzed based on a thematic approach.
Results: The World Health Organization (WHO) has set a threshold for determining the cost-effectiveness of health system interventions, that is determined and calculated based on the per capita GDP of each country. There are many differences between countries on policies related to the treatment of rare diseases, medicines, health care budgets and patient access.
Conclusions: Due to the very high cost of treating rare diseases, it is impossible to use the threshold used for general disease interventions in rare diseases and it is necessary to use a higher threshold for rare diseases. In addition to cost-effectiveness, budget, justice, feasibility, and other criteria that are considered important at the national level should be considered.
2. Dehnavieh R, Rashidian A, Maleki MR. Challenges of determining basic health insurance package in Iran. Payesh (Health Monitor). 2011;10(2):273-83.
3. Gooshki ES, Sakha MA, Mostafavi H. Health care system resource allocation: an ethical view. Medical Ethics Journal. 2014;8(29):67-95
4. Abbasi M, Faraji O. Role of ethics in fair allocation of health resources. Bioethics Journal. 2012;2(6):121-34
5. Yousefi M, Arab M, Oliaeemanesh A. Methods of resource allocation based on needs in health systems, and exploring the current Iranian resource allocation system. Hakim Research Journal. 2010 Jul 10;13(2):80-90.
6. yazdani, karimi, tofighi. Comparative study of special patients' health management and suggestion of a model for Iran. research in Medicine 2008;32(4):271-8.
7. Nouraei Motlagh S, Yusefzadeh H, Nabilou B, Chalesh V. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF TYPE 2 DIABETES SCREENING IN MAHABAD PUBLIC HEALTH CENTERS, IRAN. Pharmacophore, 8 (6S) 2017, e-1173604.
8. Williams A. QALYs and ethics: a health economist's perspective. Social science & medicine. 1996;43(12):1795-804
9. Segal L, Chen Y. Priority setting models for health. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation. 2001.
10. Simoens S. Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):315-7
11. Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny M-P, et al. Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016;94(12):925.
12. Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, Mills AJ. Cost effectiveness in low-and middle-income countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):903-17.
13. Briggs A, Gray A. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(2):1-134.
14. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(5):435-46.
15. Ottersen T, Førde R, Kakad M, Kjellevold A, Melberg HO, Moen A, et al. A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: open and fair. Health policy. 2016;120(3):246-51
16. Medic G, Korchagina D, Young KE, Toumi M, Postma MJ, Wille M, et al. Do payers value rarity? An analysis of the relationship between disease rarity and orphan drug prices in Europe. Journal of market access & health policy. 2017;5(1):1299665.
17. Czech M, Baran-Kooiker A, Atikeler K, Demirtshyan M, Gaitova K, Holownia-Voloskova M, et al. A Review of Rare Disease Policies and Orphan Drug Reimbursement Systems in 12 Eurasian Countries. Frontiers in Public Health. 2020;7
18. Atlas of rare diseases.
19. Song P, Gao J, Inagaki Y, Kokudo N, Tang W. Rare diseases, orphan drugs, and their regulation in Asia: Current status and future perspectives. Intractable & rare diseases research. 2012 Feb 29;1(1):3-9
20. Wästfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter JI. A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. Journal of internal medicine. 2006 Jul;260(1):1-0.
21. Logviss K, Krievins D, Purvina S. Rare diseases and orphan drugs: Latvian story. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2014 Dec;9(1):1-3.
22. nabizade a. Drug therapy for selected metabolic patients; are we doing the right thing? 2019.
23. https://pharmaphorum.com/views-and-analysis/three-nice-thresholds-for-cost-effectiveness-does-that-make-sense
24. Logviss K, Krievins D, Purvina S. Rare diseases and orphan drugs: Latvian story. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2014 Dec;9(1):1-3
25. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–2. Medical Decision Making. 2012;32(5):678-89.
26. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in health. 2016;19(1):1-13
27. Moradi N, Rashidian A, Nosratnejad S, Olyaeemanesh A, Zanganeh M, Zarei L. Willingness to pay for one quality-adjusted life year in Iran. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2019;17(1):4.
28. Nicod E, Annemans L, Bucsics A, Lee A, Upadhyaya S, Facey K. HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):140-51
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 4, No 3 (2020) | |
| Section | Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v4i3.6345 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Rare diseases Health system Resource allocation | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
