Literature DB >> 25456017

A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries.

Margreet Franken1, Elly Stolk2, Tessa Scharringhausen3, Anthonius de Boer4, Marc Koopmanschap2.   

Abstract

Considerations beyond cost-effectiveness are important in reimbursement decision making. We assessed the importance of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in Belgium, France, The Netherlands and Sweden. We investigated scientific literature and policy documents and conducted three interviews in each country (four in The Netherlands) with persons involved in drug reimbursement. Disease severity is an important consideration, especially where the level is high. The Netherlands operationalizes disease severity using the proportional shortfall approach. Sweden uses categories to give an indication of the level of severity. In The Netherlands and Sweden, severity only implicitly plays a role in the decision whether to reimburse a drug, whereas in Belgium and France it also explicitly plays a role in determining the willingness to use public resources. Interviewees acknowledged that as well as a qualitative description of the disease, quantitative information may also be useful as input for decision making. None of them, however, considered this to be of decisive importance. Although disease severity is important in drug reimbursement decision making in all four countries, all seem to struggle in explicitly specifying its actual role. Belgium and France are the most explicit by using levels of severity in setting reimbursement levels; all four countries could, however, improve the transparency of its actual importance relative to the other criteria in the decision-making process.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Belgium; Disease severity; Drug reimbursement; France; Health policy; Medical need; Sweden; The Netherlands

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25456017     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  9 in total

1.  Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Peter Ghijben; Yuanyuan Gu; Emily Lancsar; Silva Zavarsek
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs.

Authors:  Georgi Iskrov; Tsonka Miteva-Katrandzhieva; Rumen Stefanov
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2016-09-30

Review 3.  Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics.

Authors:  Liz Morrell; Sarah Wordsworth; Sian Rees; Richard Barker
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dominika Wranik; Min Hu
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea.

Authors:  Eun-Young Bae; Hui Jeong Kim; Hye-Jae Lee; Junho Jang; Seung Min Lee; Yunkyung Jung; Nari Yoon; Tae Kyung Kim; Kookhee Kim; Bong-Min Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A flexible formula for incorporating distributive concerns into cost-effectiveness analyses: Priority weights.

Authors:  Øystein Ariansen Haaland; Frode Lindemark; Kjell Arne Johansson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe.

Authors:  Tineke Kleinhout-Vliek; Antoinette de Bont; Meindert Boysen; Matthias Perleth; Romke van der Veen; Jacqueline Zwaap; Bert Boer
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2020-09-01

8.  The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?

Authors:  W Dominika Wranik; Liesl Gambold; Natasha Hanson; Adrian Levy
Journal:  Int J Health Plann Manage       Date:  2016-07-29

9.  Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?

Authors:  Victoria Charlton
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 2.903

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.