Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach

Health Policy

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 270-280

  Klingler, Corinna ^a   Shah, Sara M B ^a   Barron, Anthony J G ^a   Wright, John S F ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Efficiency frontier; Germany; Health technology assessment; Methods; Regulation; Regulatory space

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PROFESSIONAL DELEGATION; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; VALIDITY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; GERMANY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84874311916     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.004     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Deyo R.A. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annual Review of Public Health 2002, 23:23-44.
2. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20:44-54.
3. Oliver A., Mossialos E., Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20:1-10.
4. Perleth M. Grundlagen und Prinzipien von Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Health Technology Assessment - Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis für Wissenschaft und Entscheidungsfindung 2008, Medizinische Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin. M. Perleth, R. Busse, A. Gerhardus, B. Gibis, D. Lühmann (Eds.).
5. Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe. A personal perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2002, 18:171-183.
6. Kristensen F.B. EUnetHTA and health policy-making in Europe. EuroHealth 2006, 12:36-38.
7. Moran V., Fidler A. Health technology assessment in Europe: communicating and applying lessons learned from high-income countries to middle-income countries. Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare 2010, 3:141-149.
8. Banta H.D., Gelband H., Jonsson E., Battista R.N. Special issue: health care technology and its assessment in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 1994, 30:1-421.
9. Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries. OECD Health Working Paper No.4. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2003.
10. Barbieri M., Drummond M., Willke R., Chancellor J., Jolain B., Towse A. Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalizability. Value in Health 2005, 8:10-23.
11. Draborg E., Andersen C.K. What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22:19-25.
12. Schwarzer R., Siebert U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25:305-314.
13. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. ; 2012. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_183C_economic_evaluations_second_edition_0.pdf.
14. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Dokumentation der Stellungnahmen zum " Entwurf einer Methodik für die Bewertung von Verhältnissen zwischen Nutzen und Kosten im System der deutschen gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung Version 2.0" . ; 2009. https://www.iqwig.de/download/Dokumentation_der_Stellungnahmen_KNB-Methodenentwurf_2.0.pdf.
15. Brouwer W.B., Rutten F.F. The Efficiency Frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making?. Health Economics 2010, 19:1128-1131.
16. Drummond M, Rutten FF. New guidelines for economic evaluation in Germany and the United Kingdom: are we any closer to developing international standards? OHE Briefing No. 46. Office of Health Economics, 2008.
17. Breyer F. Zur Notwendigkeit indikationsübergreifender Nutzenmaßen. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2010, 104:209-214.
18. Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. EuroObserver 2009, 11:1-4.
19. Wahler S. Der deutsche Sonderweg in der Bewertung von Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnissen durch das IQWiG. Monitor Versorgungsforschung 2009, 2:38-42.
20. Hutton J., Trueman P., Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008, 24:511-517.
21. Kristensen F.B. Transnational collaboration on health technology assessment - a political priority in Europe. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe - current status, challenges and potential 2008, Word Health Organization, Geneva. M.V. Garrido, F.B. Kristensen, C.P. Nielsen, R. Busse (Eds.).
22. Lothgren M., Ratcliffe M. Pharmaceutical industry's perspective on health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20:97-101.
23. Drummond M.F. Will there ever be a European drug pricing and reimbursement agency?. The European Journal of Health Economics 2003, 4:67-69.
24. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare, 2011.
25. Braithwaite J. Regulatory capitalism: how it works, ideas for making it work better 2008, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
26. Thatcher M. Delegation to independent regulatory agencies: pressures, functions and contextual mediation. West European Politics 2002, 25:125-147.
27. Thatcher M., Coen D. Reshaping European regulatory space: an evolutionary analysis. West European Politics 2008, 31:806-836.
28. Scott C. Analysing regulatory space: fragmented resources and institutional design. Public Law 2001, 329-353.
29. Hancher L., Moran M. Organizing regulatory space. Capitalism, culture and regulation 1989, Clarendon Press, Oxford. L. Hancher, M. Moran (Eds.).
30. Young J.J. Outlining regulatory space: agenda issues and the FASB. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1994, 19:83-109.
31. Burris S. Governance, micro-governance and health. Temple Law Review 2004, 77:335-361.
32. Wood J., Shearing C. Imagining security 2007, Willan Publishing, Portland.
33. Scott C. Accountability in the regulatory state. Journal of Law and Society 2000, 27:38-60.
34. Shah S, Barron A, Klingler C, Wright JSF. Health technology assessment and regulatory space: delivering transparency, accountability and legitimacy to decision making in Sweden 2013, forthcoming.
35. Wright J.S.F., Head B. Reconsidering regulation and governance theory: a learning approach. Law & Policy 2009, 31:192-216.
36. Opschoor J.B., Turner K. Economic incentives and environmental policies: principles and practice 1994, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
37. Gunningham N., Grabosky P., Sinclair D. Smart regulation: designing environmental policy 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
38. May P.J. Compliance motivations: perspectives of farmers, homebuilders, and marine facilities. Law & Policy 2005, 27:317-347.
39. World Health Organization The world health report 2000 - health systems: improving performance 2000, World Health Organization, Geneva.
40. Saltman R.B. The role of comparative health studies for policy learning. Health Economics, Policy, and Law 2012, 7:11-13.
41. Marmor T. The unwritten rules of cross-national policy analysis. Health Economics, Policy, and Law 2012, 7:19-20.
42. Tuohy C.H. Shall we dance? The intricate project of comparison in the study of health policy. Health Economics, Policy, and Law 2012, 7:21-23.
43. Marmor T., Okma K.G.H. Review essay: health care systems in transition. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2003, 28:747-755.
44. Marmor T., Freeman R., Okma K. Comparative perspectives and policy learning in the world of health care. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 2005, 7:331-348.
45. Kanavos P., Nicod E., van den Aardweg S., Pomedli S. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. EuroObserver 2010, 12:1-6.
46. Morgan S.G., McMahon M., Mitton C., Roughead E., Kirk R., Kanavos P., Menon D. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs 2006, 25:337-347.
47. Chalkidou K., Tunis S., Lopert R., Rochaix L., Sawicki P.T., Nasser M., Xerri B. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. The Milbank quarterly 2009, 87:339-367.
48. Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2009, The Commonwealth Fund, New York.
49. Sorenson C., Drummond M., Kristensen F.B., Busse R. How can the impact of health technology assessment be enhanced? 2008, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.
50. Sorenson C., Chalkidou K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2012, 7:25-45.
51. Tuohy C.H. Accidental Logics 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
52. Barron A, Klingler C, Shah S, Wright JSF. Delegation to independent agencies for health technology assessment (HTA): the French multi-agency approach and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures, 2013, forthcoming.
53. Fricke F.U., Dauben H.P. Health technology assessment: a perspective from Germany. Value in Health 2009, 12(Suppl. 2):S20-S27.
54. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Zugangswege von Innovationen in die Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung. ; 2008. http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98-2614/Merkblatt_Innovationen_2010-07-01.pdf.
55. Perleth M., Gibis B., Gohlen B. A short history of health technology assessment in Germany. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(Suppl. 1):112-119.
56. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Allgemeine Methoden - Entwurf für Version 4.0 vom 09.03.2011. ; 2011. https://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG_Entwurf_Methoden_Version_4-0.pdf.
57. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Allgemeine Methoden zur Bewertung von Verhältnissen zwischen Nutzen und Kosten. ; 2009. https://www.iqwig.de/download/Methodik_fuer_die_Bewertung_von_Verhaeltnissen_zwischen_Kosten_und_Nutzen.pdf.
58. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Kosten und Nutzen in der Medizin - Die Analyse von " Effizienzgrenzen" : Allgemeine Methoden zur Bewertung von Verhältnissen zwischen Nutzen und Kosten. ; 2009. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Germany_AssessmentoftheRelationofBenefitstoCostsGerman.pdf.
59. Deutscher Bundestag 17. Wahlperiode. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuordnung des Arzneimittelmarktes in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz - AMNOG), 2010.
60. Caro J.J., Nord E., Siebert U., McGuire A., McGregor M., Henry D., de Pouvourville G., Atella V., Kolominsky-Rabas P. The Efficiency Frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Economics 2010, 19:1117-1127.
61. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. ; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf.
62. McCabe C., Claxton K., Culyer A.J. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26:733-744.
63. Schwalm A., Danner M., Seidl A., Volz F., Dintsios C., Gerber A. Wo steht die Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung des IQWiG - Abgleich mit einem internationalen Referenzszenario. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 2010, 53:615-622.
64. Goodman CS. HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. ; The Lewin Group, 2004. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/hta101.pdf.
65. Weinstein M.C., Torrance G., McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value in Health 2009, 12(Suppl. 1):S5-S9.
66. Department of Health (UK). A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. ; 2010. http://www.rees-france.com/IMG/pdf/dh_122793.pdf.
67. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook 1994, Sage, London.
68. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods 2002, Sage, London.
69. Fontana A., Frey J. The interview: from neutral stance to political involvement. Handbook of qualitative research 2005, Sage, London. N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Eds.).
70. Alasuutari P. Social theory and human reality 2004, Sage, London.
71. Rubin H., Rubin I. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data 2005, Sage, London.
72. Kvale S. Doing interviews 2008, Sage, London.
73. Simons H. Case study research in practice 2009, Sage, London.
74. Gläser J., Laudel G. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierener Untersuchungen 2010, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
75. Fuchs C., Nagel E., Raspe H. Mittelknappheit im Gesundheitswesen: Rationalisierung Rationierung und Priorisierung - was ist damit gemeint?. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2009, 106:A554-A557.
76. Oberender P. Medizin zwischen Rationierung und Rationalisierung. Rationalisierung und Rationierung im Gesundheitswesen 1996, Socio-medico Verlag, Gräfelfing. P. Oberender (Ed.).
77. Sieber U. Gesunder Zweifel: Einsichten eines Pharmakritikers - Peter Sawicki und sein Kampf für eine unabhängige Medizin 2010, Berlin Verlag, Berlin.
78. Broome J. QALYs. Journal of Public Economics 1993, 50:149-167.
79. Nord E., Daniels N., Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value in Health 2009, 12(Suppl. 1):S10-S15.
80. Nord E., Pinto J.L., Richardson J., Menzel P., Ubel P. Incorporating societal concern for fairness in numerical valuation of health programmes. Health Economics 1999, 8:25-39.
81. Fuchs C. Was heißt hier Rationierung?. Rationalisierung und Rationierung im deutschen Gesundheitswesen 1998, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart. E. Nagel, C. Fuchs (Eds.).
82. Marckmann G. Kann Rationierung im Gesundheitswesen ethisch vertretbar sein?. Gesellschaft und Gesundheit Wissenschaft 2010, 10:8-15.
83. Kuhlmann E. Zwischen zwei Mahlsteinen - Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie zur Verteilung knapper medizinischer Ressourcen in ausgewählten klinischen Settings. Rationierung im Gesundheitswesen 1998, Ullstein Medical Verlag, Wiesbaden. G. Feuerstein, E. Kuhlmann (Eds.).
84. Strech D., Börchers K., Freyer D., Neumann A., Wasem J., Marckmann G. Ärztliches Handeln bei Mittelknappheit - Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Interviewstudie. Ethik in der Medizin 2008, 20:94-109.
85. Zentrale Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer (ZEKO). Stellungnahme der Zentralen Ethikkommission zur Wahrung ethischer Grundsätze in der Medizin und ihren Grenzgebieten (Zentrale Ethikkommission) bei der Bundesärztekammer zur Priorisierung medizinischer Leistungen im System der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV). ; 2007. http://www.zentrale-ethikkommission.de/downloads/LangfassungPriorisierung.pdf.
86. Hoppe JD. Rede des Präsidenten der Bundesärztekammer und des Deutschen Ärztetages, Prof. Dr. Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe, zur Eröffnung des 112. Deutschen Ärztetages: Verteilungsgerechtigkeit durch Priorisierung - Patientenwohl in Zeiten der Mangelverwaltung. ; 2009. http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/112-DAET-Rede-Hoppe-1905091.pdf.
87. Rieser S., Stüwe H. Interview mit Dr. med. Philipp Rösler (FDP). Bundesminister für Gesundheit: Ich kann nicht mehr Geld versprechen, aber ein faires System. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2010, 107:C187-C190.
88. Staber J., Rothgang H. Rationierung und Priorisierung im Gesundheitswesen. Gesellschaft und Gesundheit Wissenschaft 2010, 10:16-22.
89. Abrecht H. Medizin am Limit - Welche Behandlungen sollen wir uns noch leisten? Wir weigern uns, über diese zentrale Frage zu diskutieren. ZeitOnline. ; 2009. http://www.zeit.de/2009/51/M-Priorisierung.