BackgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) has been reinforced in France, notably with the introduction of economic evaluation in the pricing process for the most innovative and expensive treatments. Similarly to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, the National Authority for Health (HAS), which is responsible for economic evaluation of new health technologies in France, has published recommendations on the methods of economic evaluation. Since economic assessment represents a major element of HTA in England, exploring the differences between these methodological guidelines might help to comprehend both the shape and the role economic assessment is intended to have in the French health care system.MethodsMethodological guidelines for economic evaluation in France and England have been compared topic-by-topic in order to bring out key differences in the recommended methods for economic evaluation.ResultsThe analysis of both guidelines has revealed multiple similarities between France and England, although a number of differences were also noted regarding the elected methodology of analysis, the comparison of studies’ outcomes with cost-effectiveness thresholds, the study population to consider, the quality of life valuation methods, the perspective on costs, the types of resources considered and their valuation, the discount rates to apply in order to reflect the present value of interventions, etc. To account for these differences, modifications will be required in order to adapt economic models from one country to the other.ConclusionsChanges in HTA assessment methods occur in response to different challenges determined by the different philosophical and cultural considerations surrounding health and welfare as well as the political considerations regarding the role of public policies and the importance of their evaluation.
This study analyses the causal effect of a disability on subsequent labour market status by distinguishing between public employment and private employment in France. This study provides two original contributions. First, previous studies have not distinguished between the public and private sectors although the characteristics of these sectors are likely to affect the relationship between the occurrence of a disability and labour market status. Second, we implement a difference-in-differences approach combined with an exact and dynamic matching method, which has never been used to estimate the effect of a disability on labour market status. We utilise data from the Health and Labour Market Histories (HLMH) survey conducted in France during the period 2006-2007. The results indicate that the occurrence of a disability exerts a strong detrimental effect on private employment but has no significant effect on public employment during the five years after its occurrence. Moreover, this public/private difference is neither explained by differences in the type of disability nor by differences in the composition of the workforce employed in each sector.
Despite the variability of HIV prevalence rates between countries, macro-economic estimates strongly suggest that a massive investment in scaling-up access to HIV treatment may efficiently counteract the detrimental long-term impact of the HIV pandemic on economic growth, to the extent that the AIDS shock has not already driven the economy beyond an irreversible 'no-development epidemiological trap'.
The shortness of the consultation length is due to a supply-side effect, implicating dissatisfaction for patients with mental health problems. This may not be generalizable to other patients. Findings are in favour of a specific intervention aimed at giving poor people equal access to GPs' time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.