Link between process and appraisal in coverage decisions: An analysis with structural equation modeling

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1009-1025

  Fischer, Katharina E ^a,b   Stollenwerk, Björn ^a   Rogowski, Wolf H ^a,c  

^a INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

formulary decision making; pharmaceuticals; pharmacist; statistical methods; survey methods

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; THEORETICAL MODEL;

FORMULARY DECISION MAKING; PHARMACEUTICALS; PHARMACIST; STATISTICAL METHODS; SURVEY METHODS;

DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; INTERNET; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84886045369     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13490837     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004 ; 329 (7472). 972-5
2. Sorenson C. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison.. 2010 ; 91: 1-14
3. Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Fronsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 ; 27 (3). 253-60
4. Kanavos P, Nicod E, van den Aardweg S, Pomedli S. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. Euro Observer. 2010 ; 12 (4). 1-7
5. Eddy D. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy by Sean R. Tunis. Health Aff. 2007 ; 26 (4). w500-15
6. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice: anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990 ; 263 (3). 441-3
7. Stevens A, Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 ; 20 (1). 11-24
8. Velasco-Garrido M, Kristensen F, Nielsen C, Busse R Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; ; 2008 :
9. Rogowski W. An economic theory of the fourth hurdle. Health Econ. 2013 ; 22: 600-10
10. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, Tremblay M, Bramley-Harker E, Henshall C. 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 (1). 10-18
11. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009 ; 373 (9661). 423-31
12. Cookson R, Dolan P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J Med Ethics. 2000 ; 26 (5). 323-9
13. Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998 ; 17 (5). 50-64
14. Friedman A. Beyond accountability for reasonableness. Bioethics. 2008 ; 22 (2). 101-12
15. Marckmann G. Health and justice. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008 ; 51 (8). 887-94
16. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999 ; 18 (3). 341-64
17. Fischer KE. A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies: evidence from the real-world. Health Policy. 2012 ; 107 (2-3). 218-30
18. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 ; 25 (2). 337-47
19. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 2007 ; 16 (2). 179-93
20. Fischer KE, Leidl R, Rogowski WH. A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. Health Policy. 2011 ; 101 (3). 290-9
21. Mitton CR, McMahon M, Morgan S, Gibson J. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?. Soc Sci Med. 2006 ; 63 (1). 200-11
22. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. 'It all depends': conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010 ; 70 (10). 1518-26
23. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 ; 11 (1). 75-89
24. McMahon M, Morgan S, Mitton C. The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada?. Health Policy. 2006 ; 77 (3). 339-51
25. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007 ; 82 (1). 37-50
26. Sorenson C, Drummond MF, Kanavos P Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; ; 2008 :
27. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010 ; 88 (2). 256-76
28. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 ; 4: 14
29. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 ; 9: 43
30. Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights?. Health Policy. 2011 ; 102 (2-3). 126-35
31. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. 'Yes, 'no' or 'yes, but'? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006 ; 77 (3). 352-67
32. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004 ; 13 (5). 437-52
33. Segal L, Dalziel K, Duncan M. Fixing the game: are between-silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start?. Health Econ. 2009 ; 19 (4). 449-65
34. Erntoft S. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review. Value Health. 2011 ; 14 (4). 587-99
35. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R 7 th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson ; 2010 :
36. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR Advances in International Marketing. Sinkovics RR Ghauri PN, ed. Bingley, UK: Emerald ; 2009: 277-320.
37. Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 ; 8: 194
38. Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe CJ. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 ; 29 (6). 475-95
39. Health Technology Assessment International. HTAi 2010 Abstract Book. 2010 [cited 23 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.htai2010.org/site/
40. International Health Economics Association. 8th World Congress on Health Economics Conference Programme. 2011 [cited 23 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.healtheconomics.org/congress/2011
41. International Health Accounts Team. A System of Health Accounts - Version 2.0, Pre-edited version March 2011. 2011 [cited 27 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/nha/sha-revision/en/
42. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases. 2011 [cited 27 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/ icd/en/
43. Reinartz WJ, Haenlein M, Henseler J. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2009 ; 26 (4). 332-44
44. Hair J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Marketing Theory Pract. 2011 ; 19 (2). 139-52
45. Vinzi VE, Trinchera L, Amato S Handbook of Partial Least Square Path Modelling. Vinzi VE, ed. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer ; 2010: 47-82.
46. Fischer KE. Decision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes. BMC Med Inf Dec Making. 2012 ; 12 (1). 83
47. RingleCMWendeSWillA. SmartPLS 2.0. 2005 [cited 28 November 2011]. Available from: http://www.smartpls.com
48. Hair J, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena J. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Marketing Sci. 2012 ; 40: 414-33
49. Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin Y-M, Lauro C. PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2005 ; 48 (2005). 159-205
50. Culyer AJ. Hic sunt dracones: the future of health technology assessment - one economist's perspective. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (1). E25-32
51. Mullen PM. Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion?. Health Serv Manage Res. 2004 ; 17 (1). 47-58
52. Syrett K. Health technology appraisal and the courts: accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011 ; 6 (4). 469-88
53. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Schlittgen R Advances in Data Analysis, Data Handling and Business Intelligence. Fink A Lausen B Seidel W Ultsch A, ed. Berlin: Springer ; 2010: 167-76.