Funding decisions for newborn screening: A comparative review of 22 decision processes in Europe

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 5403-5430

  Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth ^a,b   Rogowski, Wolf Henning ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Coverage; Decision making; European Union; Internet survey; Reimbursement; Tandem mass spectronomy

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH SURVEY; INTERNET; MASS SPECTROMETRY; PUBLIC HEALTH; STAKEHOLDER;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE SEVERITY; EUROPE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROMOTION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NEWBORN SCREENING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; VALIDATION PROCESS; ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; NEWBORN; STANDARDS;

EUROPE;

DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; NEONATAL SCREENING;

EID: 84901022662     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110505403     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Wilcken, B.; Wiley, V. Newborn screening. Pathology 2008, 40, 104-115.
2. Council Recommendation of 8 June 2009 on an Action in the Field of Rare Diseases. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0007:0010:EN:PDF (accessed on 12 May 2014).
3. Pollitt, R.J. New technologies extend the scope of newborn blood-spot screening, but old problems remain unresolved. Acta Paediatr. 2010, 99, 1766-1772.
4. Bodamer, O.A.; Hoffmann, G.F.; Lindner, M. Expanded newborn screening in Europe 2007. J. Inherit. Metab Dis. 2007, 30, 439-444.
5. Grosse, S.D.; Rogowski, W.H.; Ross, L.F.; Cornel, M.C.; Dondorp, W.J.; Khoury, M.J. Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: Evidence, economics, and ethics. Public health genomics 2010, 13, 106-115.
6. Oliver, A.; Mossialos, E.; Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2004, 20, 1-10.
7. Hutton, J.; McGrath, C.; Frybourg, J.M.; 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, 10-18.
8. Rogowski, W.H.; Hartz, S.C.; John, J.H. 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, 1-12.
9. Fischer, K.E.; Leidl, R.; Rogowski, W.H. A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. Health Policy 2011, 101, 290-299.
10. Daniels, N.; Sabin, J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998, 17, 50-64.
11. Schnell, R.; Hill, P.B.; Esser, E. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung; Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH: München, Germany, 2005.
12. Giacomini, M.; Miller, F.; Browman, G. Confronting the "gray zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2003, 19, 301-316.
13. Fischer, K.E.; Grosse, S.D.; Rogowski, W. The role of health technology assessment in coverage decisions on newborn screening. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2011, 27, 305-312.
14. Sicherung Guter Wissenschaftlicher Praxis Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice. Available online: http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_1310.pdf (last accessed 15 April 2014).
15. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available online: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html (accessed on 26 October 2013).
16. Loeber, J.G. Neonatal screening in Europe; the situation in 2004. J. Inherit. Metab Dis. 2007, 30, 430-438.
17. Sorenson, C. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: A six-country comparison. Issue Brief 2010, 91, 1-14.
18. Norman, R.; Haas, M.; Wilcken, B. International perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry for rare metabolic conditions. Health Policy 2009, 89, 252-260.
19. Daniels, N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
20. Rogowski, W.H.; Grosse, S.D.; Schmidtke, J.; Marckmann, G. Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: Which matter most? Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, 22, 25-31.
21. Nationaler Screeningreport 2007. Available online: http://www.screening-dgns.de/screeningregister-2d.htm (accessed on 10 November 2011).
22. Petros, M. Revisiting the Wilson-Jungner criteria: how can supplemental criteria guide public health in the era of genetic screening? Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 129-134.
23. Grosse, S.D. Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening. In Economic Evaluation in Child Health; Ungar, W.J., Ed. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 113-132.
24. Lukacs, Z. Neugeborenenscreening in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde 2009, 157, 1209-1214.
25. Fischer, K.E.; Stollenwerk, B.; Rogowski, W. Link between process and appraisal in coverage decisions: An analysis with structural equation modeling. Med. Decis. Mak. 2013, 33, 1009-1025.
26. Fischer, K.E.; Rogowski, W.; Leidl, R.; Stollenwerk, B. Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis. Health Policy 2013, 187-196.
27. Hamers, F.F.; Rumeau-Pichon, C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency in France. BMC pediatrics 2012, 12, doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-60.
28. Pollitt, R.J. Introducing new screens: Why are we all doing different things? J. Inherit. Metab Dis. 2007, 30, 423-429.
29. Javaher, P.; Nyoungui, E.; Kaariainen, H.; Kristoffersson, U.; Nippert, I.; Sequeiros, J.; Schmidtke, J. Genetic screening in Europe. Public health genomics 2010, 13, 524-537.
30. Autti-Rämö, I.; Mäkelä, M.; Sintonen, H.; Koskinen, H.; Laajalahti, L.; Halila, R.; Kaariainen, H.; Lapatto, R.; Nanto-Salonen, K.; Pulkki, K, et al. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: An analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2005, 94, 1126-1136.
31. Wieser, B. Public accountability of newborn screening: Collective knowing and deciding. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 926-933.
32. Downing, M.; Pollitt, R. Newborn bloodspot screening in the UK-past, present and future. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 2008, 45, 11-17.
33. Grosse, S.D.; Olney, R.S.; Baily, M.A. The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: A critique. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2005, 4, 239-247.
34. Ross, L.F. Screening for conditions that do not meet the Wilson and Jungner criteria: The case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 2006, 140, 914-922.
35. Fernhoff, P.M. Newborn screening for genetic disorders. Pediatr. Clin. North Am. 2009, 56, 505-513.
36. Baily, M.A.; Murray, T.H. Ethics, evidence, and cost in newborn screening. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2008, 38, 23-31.
37. Sanderson, S.; Zimmern, R.; Kroese, M.; Higgins, J.; Patch, C.; Emery, J. How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet. Med. 2005, 7, 495-500.
38. Rochaix, L.; Xerri, B. National Authority for Health: France. Issue Brief 2009, 58, 1-9.
39. Prosser, L.A.; Grosse, S.D.; Kemper, A.R.; Tarini, B.A.; Perrin, J.M. Decision analysis, economic evaluation, and newborn screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 703-712.
40. Report on the Practices of Newborn Screening for Rare Disorders Implemented in Member States of the European Union, Candidate and Potential Candidate and EFTA Countries. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/documents/news/Report_NBS_Current_Practices_20120108_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2014).
41. Executive Report to the European Commission on Newborn Screening in the European Union. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/documents/news/Executive_Report_to_EC_20120108_FINALE.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2014).
42. Levy, P.A. An overview of newborn screening. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2010, 31, 622-631.