European drug reimbursement systems' legitimacy: Five-country comparison and policy tool

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 358-366

  Cleemput, Irina ^a,b   Margreet Franken, ^a   Koopmanschap, Marc ^c   Le Polain, Maïté ^a  

^a BELGIAN HEALTH CARE KNOWLEDGE CENTRE KCE   (Belgium)

^b HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Advisory committees; Decision making; Drug reimbursement; Pharmaceutical economics

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; DECISION FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKERS; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS; DRUG REIMBURSEMENT; POLICY TOOLS; PUBLIC RESOURCES; VALUE JUDGMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS;

TRANSPARENCY;

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; DECISION MAKING; DRUG REIMBURSEMENT; FRANCE; HUMAN; NETHERLANDS; REIMBURSEMENT; SWEDEN;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; INTERNATIONALITY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 84867555202     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000529     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Annemans L, Arickx F, Belle O, et al. A call to make valuable innovative medicines accessible in the European Union. In: Cock JD, ed. Recommendations for a coordinated action to stimulate, measure and valorise pharmaceutical innovation. Backgound report for the ministerial conference 23-24 September 2010. Brussels: Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union; 2010:55.
2. Claxton K. Oft, Vbp: Qed? Health Econ. 2007;16:545-558.
3. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. Brussels: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheiszorg/Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé/Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2008.
4. Cleemput I, van Wilder P, Huybrechts M, Vrijens F. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health. 2009;12:441-449.
5. Cookson R, Dolan P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:323-329.
6. Culyer AJ. The principle objective of the NHS should be to maximise aggregate health. In: New B, ed. Rationing: Talk and action in health care. London: King's Fund and British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1997.
7. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26:303-350.
8. Daniels N, Teagarden JR, Sabin JE. An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:125-137.
9. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. [Orphan diseases and orphan medicines: A Belgian and European study]. J Pharm Belg. 2009:131-137.
10. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy. 2010;97:173-179.
11. Hasman A, Hope T, Osterdal LP. Health care need: Three interpretations. J Appl Philos. 2006;23:145-156.
12. High Level Group on Health Services and Medical Care. Background document setting out health system objectives of particular interest to different European committees. Surrey: European Commission; 2004.
13. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10-18.
14. Jansson S. Implementing accountability for reasonableness-the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden. Health Econ Policy Law. 2007;2(pt 2):153-171.
15. LFN. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Board: Areas of responsibility and tasks. Solna: Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden; 2002.
16. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? BMJ. 2005;331:1016-1019.
17. McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:2407-2419.
18. Nord E. Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of healthcare interventions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001;1:85-92.
19. Obyn C, CleemputI.The capital cost and productivity ofMRIinaBelgian setting. JBR-BTR. 2010;93:92-96.
20. Pasternack I, Anttila H, Makela M, et al. Testing the HTA core model: Experiences from two pilot projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 2):21-27.
21. Schotte E. Een onderzoek naar mogelijke factoren die een impact kunnen hebben op de terugbetalingsbeslissing van geneesmiddelen. Mas-terthesis "Management en Beleid van Gezondheidszorg". Ghent: UGent; 2009.
22. Senn A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum M, Senn A, eds. The quality of life. Oxford; Oxford University Press; 1993.
23. Stevens A, Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:11-24.
24. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WBF, Busschbach JJV. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: Illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097-1107.
25. Syrett K. Health technology appraisal and the courts: Accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:469-488.
26. Thomson S, Foubister T, Figueras J, et al. Addressing financial sustain-ability in health systems. Policy summary. Copenhagen: WHO; 2009.
27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Strategic Plan Fiscal year 2010-2015. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
28. van de Wetering EJ, Stolk EA, van Exel NJ, Brouwer WB. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ. 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
29. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ. 1997;6:117-132.
30. Zwaap J, Mastenbroek CG, van der Holt B, van der Heijden LA. Pakket-beheer in Praktijk 2. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2009.