http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
배은영,Bae, Eun-Young 대한예방의학회 2008 예방의학회지 Vol.41 No.2
An economic evaluation is required in order to apply to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) for a listing in the national drug formulary. To assist companies in preparing the necessary documents, HIRA published guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals in 2006. The guidelines are composed of two parts: guidance and explanatory notes. Each guideline reflects the best practice which meets both the theoretical consensus within the academic community and local situations, like data availability. To enhance the transparency of evaluation, guidelines emphasize the reproducibility of data and analysis result. That is, all evaluation processes are required to be described in enough detail to be replicated by reviewers. With growing experience and theoretical development in this area, HIRA guidelines will be revised periodically.
배은영 ( Eun Young Bae ) 한국보건경제정책학회 2021 보건경제와 정책연구 Vol.27 No.4
There are many uncertainties on cost-effectiveness among high-priced new drugs that have recently entered the market. Considering the social concerns about these drugs and the financial burden of national health insurance, evaluating and managing the uncertainty is expected to become a significant policy concern in the future. Uncertainties surrounding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio are divided into stochastic, structural, and parametric uncertainties and heterogeneity. Among them, parametric uncertainty is mainly evaluated through sensitivity analysis, and efforts are being made to evaluate the value of securing additional evidence through the value of information analysis. Structural uncertainty is overlooked compared to parametric uncertainty despite its significant impact on the results. Scenario analysis, model selection, model averaging, and parameterization have been proposed to analyze it. The performance-based risk-sharing scheme, particularly coverage with evidence development, has been proposed as a risk management plan. However, suppose the data collection plan is not based on uncertainty assessment and is not liked to the decision-making stage. In that case, additional data may have little impact on the final decisions.
배은영(Eun Young Bae),류동춘(Dong Choon Ryu),김상구(Sang Goo Kim),손희종(Hee Jong Son),나영신(Young Shin Na),송미정(Mi Jeong Song),최동훈(Dong Hoon Choi) 한국물환경학회 2001 한국물환경학회지 Vol.17 No.4
We have researched removal of organic matters as DOC, THMFP and UV254 with pre-ozonation. filtration, post-ozonation and 3 kinds of granular activated carbon(GAC) by using the Nakdong river`s water for evaluating removal characteristics of organic matters on each treatment process. UV-254/DOC(SUVA) and THMFP/DOC(STHMFP) can be valuable parameters for evaluating each processes and finding more effective process by comparing the removal of specific organic and DOC before and after treatment. The removal of DOC. THMFP and UV-254 by pre-ozonation are 0%, 25%, 30% and by filtration are 33%, 52%, 46% and by post-ozonation are 7%, 7%, 36% and residual rate of SUVA and STHMFP by pre-ozonation are 0.68. 0.75 and by filtration 0.8, 0.79 and by post-ozonation 0.69, 1.0 respectively. The reason of higher removal of THMFP and UV-254 than DOC is hydrophobic organic matters are more easily removed by ozonation and coagulation than hydrophilic organic matters. The removal of DOC are 21%, 26%, 21% and THMFP are 27%, 40%. 30% and UV-254 are 22%, 26%, 14% and residual of SUVA are 1.0, 0.91, 1.1 and STHMFP are 0.97, 0.83, 0.93 by coconut, coal, wood base GAC. Residual of SUVA are over than 1.0 by coconut, wood base GAC treatment because UV-254 could not be easily removed by biomass on the surface of GAC but residual of SUVA is lower than 1.0 treated by coal base GAC treatment because UV-254 can be easily adsorbed into the residual pore.
의료기술평가를 통한 급여결정의 한계와 극복방안: 기등재의약품목록정비 사업에 대한 평가를 중심으로
배은영 ( Eun Young Bae ) 한국보건경제정책학회 2010 보건경제와 정책연구 Vol.16 No.3
Korea is among the countries which have experienced rapidly increasing drug expenditures. According to OECD health data, the annual growth rate of Korean drug expenditure was around 10% from 2001 to 2006. To control and keep this increase rate within sustainable levels, and attain the efficiency within the system, the Korean government announced the introduction of a positive list system in May 2006. Under the positive list system, only drugs which have established their value in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness can be listed. In addition to new drugs, listed drugs have also been scheduled to have their value re-evaluated during the period from 2007 to 2012. Based on the evaluation results, existing drugs with low added value will be de-listed. The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service(HIRA) has a mandate to review all listed drugs, and it reviewed migraine and hyperlipidemia drugs as a pilot project in 2007. Since HIRA opened its assessment reports and the preliminary decisions of the committee, there has been a debate over the assessment methodology and decisions made by the committee. This study will discuss the issues which have been raised in Korea during the re-evaluation of two therapeutics groups. These issues are: the relation between scientific assessment and decision making, the use of cost-effectiveness data in the determination of ceiling price, and the way social values are reflected in reimbursement decisions.
경제성평가자료제출생략 트랙으로 진입한 약제에 대한 외국의 치료적 이익 평가 결과 비교
배은영(Eun-Young Bae),차소희(Sohee Cha),임화령(Hwa-Ryeong Lim),이혜재(Hye-Jae Lee),홍지형(Jihyung Hong) 대한약학회 2024 약학회지 Vol.68 No.1
This study assessed the additional health benefits of the drugs listed through the Economic Evaluation Exemption Procedure (EEEP) in Korea. We conducted a comparative review of 32 EEEP drugs listed between May 2015 and July 2022, comparing how they were assessed in France, Germany, and Canada. To collect the data, we reviewed the evaluations conducted by the relevant agency in each country and identified if the additional benefit exists and how significant it is. Additionally, the size of the benefit gains assessed by each agency was categorized as “High” or “Low,” allowing us to evaluate the consistency among these countries. In France, only 38% of the 34 drugs compared demonstrated moderate or higher levels of additional benefit. Germany acknowledged substantial benefit improvement in 27% of the 30 drugs assessed, while 73% showed minor, unquantifiable, or no additional benefits. In Canada, 5 out of 22 cases have been identified as providing significant additional benefit. The level of inter-country consistency in the assessment results from these three countries was somewhat limited. Based on the evaluation results in France, Germany, and Canada, the additional benefits of EEEP drugs over existing treatments were not substantial in many cases. Even though the EEEP was introduced to improve accessibility to high-cost drugs for medical conditions with unmet needs, it is necessary to reconsider whether to allow exceptions for drugs with low therapeutic value.