National Recommendations for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations Reporting for Reimbursement and Procurement of New Pharmaceutical Applications in Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To improve resource allocation within our healthcare system, the Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and the Management of Medical Technology (UPA) and Universal Health Insurance Authority (UHIA) established a joint economic evaluation process to support UHIA reimbursement decisions and UPA procurement decisions. The main objective of this study is to describe the developed national pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Egypt, especially for reimbursement and procurement for new pharmaceuticals. Methods: A focus group was formed as a national initiative activity by governmental authorities in Egypt. The aim of this focus group was to develop national pharmacoeconomic guidelines for the evaluation of innovative and high-budget pharmaceutical products. This group consisted of various stakeholders with experience in health economics, outcomes research, public health, and pharmacy practice. To develop our national pharmacoeconomic guidelines, three steps were taken. First, the focus group reviewed the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) methods for health economic evaluations for new pharmaceuticals as well as the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Format for Formulary Submissions. Second, the focus group used the EUnetHTA guideline as a reference and adapted it to our local context. The focus group added the value assessment component, using the CADTH and AMCP guidelines. Third, the focus group collected input and feedback from key stakeholders through a focus group by using the quasi-Delphi panel approach. Results: The results of the focus group are a main structure of national pharmacoeconomic guidelines for the evaluation of innovative and high-budget pharmaceutical products, consisting of seven main topics. Conclusion: Economic evaluation is a core element of Health Technology Assessment, (HTA); therefore, the UHIA and UPA were encouraged to produce unified joint pharmacoeconomic guidelines for innovative products as an initial step in their commitment to implement the use of HTA in decision-making. This standardization of guidelines not only ensures transparency but also guarantees an accurate and transparent process to support evidence-based decision-making. These guidelines are expected to help decision-makers improve their process and attain better health outcomes for Egyptian patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.139 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".