A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden

Health Policy

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 203-211

  Grepstad, Mari ^a   Kanavos, Panos ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Denmark; HTA; Norway; Pharmaceuticals; Reimbursement; Sweden

Indexed keywords

APIXABAN; BRINZOLAMIDE; BRINZOLAMIDE PLUS TIMOLOL; CAPSAICIN; DABIGATRAN; DENOSUMAB; DRONEDARONE; ESLICARBAZEPINE ACETATE; RIVAROXABAN; ROFLUMILAST; SAXAGLIPTIN; TICAGRELOR;

ARTICLE; BONE DISEASE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DENMARK; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG SAFETY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NORWAY; OBSTRUCTIVE AIRWAY DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; SWEDEN; AMBULATORY CARE; DRUG COST; INSURANCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REIMBURSEMENT;

AMBULATORY CARE; DENMARK; DRUG COSTS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; NORWAY; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; SWEDEN;

EID: 84922748540     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.013     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Drummond M. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for reimbursement decisions. What have we achieved? 2012, University of York, York, UK.
2. Schwarzer R., Siebert U. A systematic framework for comparing methods: procedures, and impact across HTA agencies. Value in Health 2008, 11(6):A337-A338.
3. Noorani H.Z., Husereau D.R., Boudreau R., Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(3):310-315.
4. Packer C., Simpson S., Stevens A. International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(4):419-428.
5. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union, 2008, Observatory Studies Series No. 11, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, World Health Organization.
6. Chinitz D. Health technology assessment in four countries: response from political science. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(1):55-60.
7. Hemminki E., Bomannlarsen P. Drug reimbursement in 4 Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 1981, 9(1):1-10.
8. Kristensen F.K.O., Sverre J.M., Holm L.B. A comparative analysis of the financing: pricing and reimbursement systems for prescription drugs in the Nordic countries. Value in Health 2005, 8(6):A188.
9. 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(2):167-177.
10. Bending M., Hutton J., McGrath C. A comparison of pharmaceutical reimbursement agencies' processes and methods in France and Scotland. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2012, 28(02):187-194.
11. Klingler C., Shah S.M., Barron A.J., Wright J.S. Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach. Health Policy 2013, 109(3):270-280.
12. Ehlers L., Vestergaard M., Kidholm K., Bonnevie B., Pedersen P.H., Jørgensen T., et al. Doing mini-health technology assessments in hospitals: a new concept of decision support in health care?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(03):295-301.
13. Drummond M.F., Wilson D.A., Kanavos P., Ubel P., Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(01):36-42.
14. Magnussen J., Vrangbaek K., Saltman R. Nordic health care systems: recent reforms and current policy challenges 2009, McGraw-Hill International.
15. Özer S., Thomsen E., Schüder P. PHIS Pharma profile Denmark 2011, Pharmaceutical Health Information System, Commissioned by the European Commission, Executive Agency for Health and Consumers and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health.
16. Festøy H, Aanes T, Yu LM, Ognøy A, Gregersen T. PHIS Pharma profile Norway, 2011, Pharmaceutical Health Information System, commissioned by the European Commission, Executive Agency for Health and Consumers and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health.
17. Redman T., Köping Höggård M. PPRI Pharma profile Sweden 2007, Pharmaceutical Health Information System, commissioned by the European Commission, Executive Agency for Health and Consumers and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health.
18. Hofmann B. Priority setting in health care: trends and models from Scandinavian experiences. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2012, 1-8.
19. Morland B., Ringard A., Rottingen J.A. Supporting tough decisions in Norway: a healthcare system approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010, 26(4):398-404.
20. Raftery J. Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2006, 332(7552):1266.
21. Randolph J.J. Free-marginal multirater kappa (multirater (free): an alternative to Fleiss' fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Joensuu learning and instruction symposium 2005, Citeseer.
22. Randolph J.J. Online kappa calculator 2008, Available from http://justus.randolph.name/kappa [accessed 05.03.13].
23. Pedersen K.M. Pricing and reimbursement of drugs in Denmark. The European Journal of Health Economics 2003, 4(1):60-65.
24. Sælensminde K.T., Torkilseng E. Høringsutgave Samfunnsøkonomiske analyser i helsesektoren- en veileder 2011, Helsedirektoratet, Available from http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/saker/_attachment/14189?_download=true&_ts=132157b6762 [accessed on 28.12.14].
25. Helsedirektoratet. 2014. Available from [accessed 28.09.14]. http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/finansiering/refusjonsordninger/tall-og-analyser/legemidler/Sider/legemidler-pa-bla-resept-med-hoyest-refusjonsutgifter-og-flest-brukere-i-2009-2010.aspx.
26. Berglund F. Fører individuell refusjon til sosiale ulikheter. NIBR Notat. 2007. Available from [accessed 28.12.14]. http://www.lmi.no/dm_documents/rapport_fra_nibr_3riew.pdf.