A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries

Health Policy

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 195-202

  Franken, Margreet ^a   Stolk, Elly ^a   Scharringhausen, Tessa ^b   de Boer, Anthonius ^c   Koopmanschap, Marc ^a  

^a Erasmus University Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

^b Amgen   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Belgium; Disease severity; Drug reimbursement; France; Health policy; Medical need; Sweden; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

BELGIUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG REIMBURSEMENT; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SWEDEN; COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MANAGEMENT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

BELGIUM; COST SHARING; FRANCE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; NETHERLANDS; POLICY MAKING; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SWEDEN;

EID: 84922740450     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.007     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Nicod E., Kanavos P. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy 2012, 108:167-177.
2. Nord E., Pinto J.L., Richardson J., Menzel P., Ubel P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics 1999, 8:25-39.
3. Dolan P., Edlin R., Tsuchiya A. The relative societal value of health gains to different beneficiaries 2008, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
4. Cleemput I., Franken M., le Polain M., Koopmanschap M. European drug reimbursement systems' legitimacy: five-country comparison and policy tool. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2012, 28:358-366.
5. Franken M.G., le Polain M., Cleemput I., Koopmanschap M.A. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2012, 28:349-357.
6. Stolk E.A., Pickee S.J., Ament A.H.J.A., Busschbach J.J.V. Equity in health care prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value. Health Policy 2005, 74:343-355.
7. Velasco-Garrido M., Schreyögg J., Stargardt T., Busse R. Identification of health baskets in nine EU countries. La Doc. française: Revue française des affaires sociales 2006, 6-7(6):63-88. Available at: http://www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=RFAS_EN606_0063.
8. Nord E., Johansen R. Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: a review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Policy 2014, 116:281-288.
9. Nord E. Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of healthcare interventions. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2001, 1:85-92.
10. Shah K.K. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 2009, 93:77-84.
11. le Polain M., Franken M.G., Koopmanschap M.A., Cleemput I. Drug reimbursement systems: international comparison and policy recommendations 2010, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels.
12. Linley W.G., Hughes D.A. Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31:345-355.
13. Koopmanschap M.A., Stolk E.A., Koolman A.H.E., Dear Policymaker Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010, 26:198-204.
14. Linley W.G., Hughes D.A. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Economics 2013, 22:948-964.
15. Bobinac A., Van Exel N., Rutten F.F., Brouwer W.B. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: the individual perspective. Value in Health 2010, 13:1046-1055.
16. Lancsar E., Wildman J., Donaldson C., Ryan M., Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. Journal of Health Economics 2011, 30:466-478.
17. Green C. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health'as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities. Social Science and Medicine 2009, 68:2247-2255.
18. Richardson J.R.J., McKie J., Peacock S.J., Iezzi A. Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service. The European Journal of Health Economics 2011, 12:163-174.
19. Shah K.K., Tsuchiya A., Wailoo A.J. Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. European Journal of Health Economics 2014, 15:389-399.
20. Olsen J.A. Priority preferences: end of Life does not matter, but total life does. Value in Health 2013, 16:1063-1066.
21. Cookson R., McCabe C., Tsuchiya A. Public healthcare resource allocation and the rule of rescue. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008, 34:540-544.
22. Cookson R., Dolan P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000, 26:323-329.
23. Annemans L., Arickx F., Belle O., Boers K., Bogaert M., Callens S., et al. A call to make valuable innovative medicines available in the European Union. Recommendations for a coordinated action to stimulate, measure, and valorise pharmaceutical innovation 2010, Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Brussel.
24. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Economics 1997, 6:117-132.
25. Nord E. Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity. Social Science and Medicine 2005, 60:257-263.
26. Nord E. Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of healthcare interventions. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 2001, 1:85-92.
27. Stolk E.A., van Donselaar G., Brouwer W.B., Busschbach J.J. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22:1097-1107.
28. McKie J., Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Social Science and Medicine 2003, 56:2407-2419.
29. Franken M., Nilsson F., Sandmann F., De Boer A., Koopmanschap M. Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31:781-797.
30. Zwaap J., Mastenbroek C.G., van der Holt B., van der Heijden L.A. Management of the basic benefit package in practice 2 2009, College voor zorgverzekeringen, Diemen, [in Dutch: Pakketbeheer in Praktijk 2].
31. Van de Wetering E., Stolk E., Van Exel N., Brouwer W. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. The European Journal of Health Economics 2013, 14:107-115.
32. Gerkens S., Belgium Merkur S. Health system review. Health Systems in Transition 2010, 12:1-266.
33. Jansson S. Implementing accountability for reasonableness-the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2007, 2:153-171.
34. de Pouvourville G.A. French approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. The European Journal of Health Economics 2010, 11:521-523.
35. Bouvenot G. Le rÔle de la commission de la transparence de la HAS dans la pertinence de l'admission au remboursement des médicaments par l'assurance maladie. Regards: Protection Sociale 2013, 44:59-66.
36. Pharmaceutical Policy and Management Unit Global analytical report on the content of Pharmanet - singular pathway. Brussel: National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance; 2009;1-80 [Available at: ]. http://www.inami.fgov.be/drug/fr/statistics-scientific-information/pharmanet/introduction/pdf/analyticalreport_eng.pdf.
37. Daniels N., Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1997, 26:303-350.
38. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. Journal of Health Economics 2005, 24:703-714.
39. Cookson R. Can the NICE end-of-life premium be given a coherent ethical justification?. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2013, 38:1129-1148.
40. Kvamme M.K., Gyrd-Hansen D., Olsen J.A., Kristiansen I.S. Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life-expectancy results from a population survey. Journal of Health Economics 2010, 29:541-548.