A Makady1, A van Veelen2, A de Boer2, H Hillege3, O H Klungel2, W Goettsch4. 1. National Healthcare Institute (ZIN), Diemen, the Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: amakady@zinl.nl. 2. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. National Healthcare Institute (ZIN), Diemen, the Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conditional financing (CF) of expensive hospital drugs was applied in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2012; a 4-year coverage with evidence development (CED) framework for expensive hospital drugs. This study aims to evaluate the CF framework, focusing on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) procedures. METHODS: Using a standardised data extraction form, researchers independently extracted information on procedural, methodological and decision-making aspects from HTA reports of drugs selected for CF. RESULTS: Forty-nine drugs were chosen for CF, of which 12 underwent the full procedure. The procedure extended beyond the envisioned 4 years period for 11/12 drugs. Outcomes research studies conducted as part of CF provided insufficient scientific data to reach conclusions on appropriate use and cost-effectiveness of 5/12 drugs. After re-assessment, continuation of reimbursement was advised for 10/12 drugs, with 6 necessitating yet additional conditions for evidence generation. Notably, advice to discontinue reimbursement for 2/12 drugs has not yet been implemented in Dutch healthcare practice. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretically, CF provided an option for quick but conditional access to drugs. However, numerous aspects related to the design and implementation of CF negatively affected its value in practice. Future CED schemes should aim to incorporate learnings from the CF example to increase their impact in healthcare practice.
BACKGROUND: Conditional financing (CF) of expensive hospital drugs was applied in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2012; a 4-year coverage with evidence development (CED) framework for expensive hospital drugs. This study aims to evaluate the CF framework, focusing on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) procedures. METHODS: Using a standardised data extraction form, researchers independently extracted information on procedural, methodological and decision-making aspects from HTA reports of drugs selected for CF. RESULTS: Forty-nine drugs were chosen for CF, of which 12 underwent the full procedure. The procedure extended beyond the envisioned 4 years period for 11/12 drugs. Outcomes research studies conducted as part of CF provided insufficient scientific data to reach conclusions on appropriate use and cost-effectiveness of 5/12 drugs. After re-assessment, continuation of reimbursement was advised for 10/12 drugs, with 6 necessitating yet additional conditions for evidence generation. Notably, advice to discontinue reimbursement for 2/12 drugs has not yet been implemented in Dutch healthcare practice. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretically, CF provided an option for quick but conditional access to drugs. However, numerous aspects related to the design and implementation of CF negatively affected its value in practice. Future CED schemes should aim to incorporate learnings from the CF example to increase their impact in healthcare practice.
Authors: Jane Moseley; Spiros Vamvakas; Michael Berntgen; Alison Cave; Xavier Kurz; Peter Arlett; Virginia Acha; Simon Bennett; Catherine Cohet; Solange Corriol-Rohou; Emma Du Four; Christelle Lamoril; Anja Langeneckert; Maren Koban; Muriel Pasté; Susan Sandler; Karin Van Baelen; Agnese Cangini; Sonia García; Mercè Obach; Emmanuel Gimenez Garcia; Leonor Varela Lema; Hanna-Mari Jauhonen; Piia Rannanheimo; Deborah Morrison; Marc Van De Casteele; Anna Strömgren; Anders Viberg; Amr Makady; Chantal Guilhaume Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Rick A Vreman; Thomas F Broekhoff; Hubert Gm Leufkens; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Wim G Goettsch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Adriënne H Rotteveel; Mattijs S Lambooij; Joline J A van de Rijt; Job van Exel; Karel G M Moons; G Ardine de Wit Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Natalie Bohm; Sarah Bermingham; Frank Grimsey Jones; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Alex Diamantopoulos; Jessica R Burton; Hamish Laing Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Ildikó Ádám; Marcelien Callenbach; Bertalan Németh; Rick A Vreman; Cecilia Tollin; Johan Pontén; Dalia Dawoud; Jamie Elvidge; Nick Crabb; Sahar Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani; Anke Pisters-van Roy; Áron Vincziczki; Emad Almomani; Maja Vajagic; Z Gulsen Oner; Mirna Matni; Jurij Fürst; Rabia Kahveci; Wim G Goettsch; Zoltán Kaló Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-09-23