ISPOR 15th Annual European Congress Banner
Plenary Sessions
First Plenary Session
Monday, 5 November 2012
9:15-10:45

CONVERGING OR DIVERGING MODELS OF HTA IN EUROPE

The role of health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement decisions in European health systems is still in transition.  In Germany, the introduction of a new regulation for reimbursement (AMNOG) will minimize the significance of health economic analysis for pricing, because a consensus could not be reached on basic methodological issues regarding cost-effective analysis.  The clinical evidence provided in ‘value dossiers’ is now the basis for price negotiations between the German statutory health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry. In the UK and France, the changes in regulations are not as dramatic, but criteria for reimbursement decisions (apart from cost-effectiveness analysis) are still actively debated.  In this session, the current state of these discussions will be outlined, and future trends and methodological requirements will be discussed by key leaders of health authorities and HTA agencies in Germany, France and the UK.

For more information on these European country health care systems and health care decision processes, see the ISPOR Global Health Care Systems Road Map at: http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Default.asp and http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp or attend the ISPOR Short Course, “Reimbursement Systems in Europe” given prior to this First Plenary Session. See: Reimbursement Systems in Europe for more information about this ISPOR Short Course.

Wolfgang Greiner, PhD, MSc Moderator:
Wolfgang Greiner, PhD, MSc, Professor & Director, Department of Health Economics and Health Management, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
Jürgen Windeler, MD Speakers:
Jürgen Windeler, MD, Director, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany
Carole Longson, PhD, Director, Centre for Health Technology Evaluation and Executive Director, National Institute of Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, UK
Jean-Luc Harousseau

Jean-Luc Harousseau, MD, President and Chairman of the Board, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis La Plaine, France

Second Plenary Session
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
10:15-11:30

INTERNATIONAL PRICE REFERENCING – IS THERE A “RIGHT” WAY TO PERFORM IT?

Policy measures such as international referencing (using other countries as a benchmark) to set drug prices and internal reference pricing systems to promote price competition in domestic markets are quite common in Europe.  The process for referencing varies considerably and not all health systems make their formula for calculating the reference price explicit.  In some countries, the rules for referencing can only be figured out empirically by their respective decisions.  The choice of reference country, which can be a subject of public debate (e.g. in Germany where some elements of reference pricing were recently introduced) will also determine, to a large extent, the reference price. It is therefore difficult for the pharmaceutical industry to model the outcome of this process, as the different referencing activities in various national pharmaceutical markets interact. This session will provide an overview of current practices within European markets.  Reasons for international price differentiation, common policy patterns in this field and current trends in the methods to compare prices on an international level will be discussed.

Andrew Jack Moderator:
Andrew Jack, Pharmaceuticals Correspondent, Financial Times, London, UK
Kees de Joncheere, PharmD, MBA, MSc Speakers:
Kees de Joncheere, PharmD, MBA, MSc, Director, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland
Thomas B. Cueni

Thomas B. Cueni, MSc, Secretary General, Interpharma, Basel, Switzerland

Ulrich Kaiser, PhD, MSc Ulrich Kaiser, PhD, MSc, Professor, Department of Business Administration – Entrepreneurship, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
Third Plenary Session
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
11:15-12:30

FAIRNESS FIRST? SOCIAL VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES

It is assumed that people make, or should make, rational choices based on self-interest.  For conventional health economic evaluations, self-interest is approximated by individual preferences, such as maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) in the case of cost-benefit analysis or quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the case of cost-utility analysis. Efficiency is achieved when aggregate benefits (WTP or QALYs) are maximized under a resource constraint.  However, there is now overwhelming evidence that people exhibit a ‘regard for others’ or “social” preferences, which systematically differ from the “efficiency” objective underlying the WTP or QALY maximization hypothesis.  Well-documented social preferences include inequity aversion, concerns for fairness, reciprocity and altruism, but also spiteful or envious preferences.  This raises important issues. If health economic evaluations are intended to aid health policy makers in resource allocation decisions, what do we really know about social preferences for health care resource allocation?  What are the nature of social preferences, and how can they be measured appropriately?  How can social preferences be incorporated in formal health technology assessments and allocation of scarce health care resources?

Michael Schlander, MD, PhD, MBA Moderator:
Michael Schlander, MD, PhD, MBA, Professor, Health Care and Innovation Management, University of Heidelberg and Chairman & Scientific Director, Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal), Wiesbaden, Germany
Erik Nord, PhD Speakers:
Erik Nord, PhD, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Jeff Richardson Jeff Richardson, PhD, Professor, Department of Business and Economics and Foundation Director of the Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Christian Affolter, PhD, MBA, Head of Foundations, santésuisse, Solothurn, Switzerland
To the Top