Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

European Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 715-730

  Nicod, Elena ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

England; France; Health technology assessment; Mixed methods research; Orphan drugs; Scotland; Sweden; Thematic analysis

Indexed keywords

AZACITIDINE; ELTROMBOPAG; EVEROLIMUS; IMATINIB; LENALIDOMIDE; MANNITOL; MIFAMURTIDE; OFATUMUMAB; ORPHAN DRUG; ROMIPLOSTIM; TRABECTEDIN;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENGLAND; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCOTLAND; SWEDEN; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMIC MODEL; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; UNCERTAINTY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84982273349     PISSN: 16187598     EISSN: 16187601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-016-0823-0     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. European Commission. Guiding principles for good practices implementing a pricing and reimbursement policy. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/healthcare/files/docs/pricing_principles_en.pdf (2014). Accessed 15 November 2014
2. Clement, F., Harris, A., Li, J.: Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make coverage decisions, a comparison of Britain, Australia and Canada. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 302(13), 1437–1443 (2010)
3. Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B.: Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am. J. Manag. Care. 14(9), 581–588 (2008)
4. Nicod, E., Kanavos, P.: Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions across countries: a mixed methods study. Health Policy. 120(1), 35–45 (2016)
5. Banta, D.: The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 63(2), 121–132 (2003)
6. Webb, D.: Early assessment of cost-effectiveness. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. 105, 11–12 (2009)
7. Pearson, S., Rawlins, M.: Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294(20), 2618–2622 (2005)
8. Drummond, M., de Pouvourville, G., Jones, E., Haig, J., Saba, G., Cawston, H.: A comparative analysis of two contrasting european approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France. Pharmacoeconomics. 32(5), 509–520 (2014)
9. Brousselle, A., Lessard, C.: Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc. Sci. Med. 72(6), 832–839 (2011)
10. Sculpher, M.: NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide—sensible consolidation or opportunities missed? Pharmacoeconomics. 26(9), 721–724 (2008)
11. Brazier, J.: Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 26(9), 769–779 (2008)
12. Dolan, P., Shaw, R., Tsuchiya, A., Williams, A.: QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 14(2), 197–208 (2005)
13. Gauvin, F.P., Abelson, J., Giacomini, M., Eyles, J., Lavis, J.N.: “It all depends”: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(10), 1518–1526 (2010)
14. Rawlins, M.: De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Clin. Med. 8(6), 579–588 (2008)
15. Claxton, K.: Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 26(9), 781–798 (2008)
16. Earnshaw, J., Lewis, G.: NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal—pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 26(9), 725–727 (2008)
17. Morgan, S.G., McMahon, M., Mitton, C., Roughead, E., Kirk, R., Kanavos, P., et al.: Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff. 25(2), 337–347 (2006)
18. Shah, K., Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., Towse, A., Smyth, E.: A review of health technology appraisals: case studies in oncology. Int. J. Technol. Assess. 29(1), 101–109 (2013)
19. Nicod, E., Kanavos, P.: Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy. 108(2–3), 167–177 (2012)
20. Nicod, E.: Harmonizing the outcomes of HTA: an application to central nervous system treatments. EuroObserver 12(4), 9–14 (2010)
21. Van den Aardweg, S.: HTA of orphan drugs across six countries: fair, flawed or failing? EuroObserver 4, 14–17 (2010)
22. Kanavos, P., Nicod, E., Van den Aardweg, S., Pomedli, S.: The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. EuroObserver 12(4), 1–6 (2010)
23. Drummond, M.F., Wilson, D.A., Kanavos, P., Ubel, P., Rovira, J.: Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int. J. Technol. Assess. 23(1), 36–42 (2007)
24. McCabe, C., Claxton, K., Tsuchiya, A.: Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? Brit. Med. J. 331(7523), 1016–1019 (2005)
25. Dupont, A., Van Wilder, P.: Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 71(4), 488–496 (2011)
26. Kanavos, P., Nicod, E.: What is wrong with orphan drug policies? Suggestions for ways forward. Value Health 15(8), 1182–1184 (2012)
27. Simoens, S.: Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orph J Rare Dis. 6, 42 (2011)
28. Stolk, P., Heemstra, H.E., Leufkens, H.G.M., Bloechl-Daum, B., Heerdink, E.R.: No difference in between-country variability in use of newly approved orphan and non-orphan medicinal products—a pilot study. Orph. J. Rare. Dis. 14(4), 27 (2009)
29. Dupont, A.G.: Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 71(4), 488 (2011)
30. Scottish Medicines Consortium. SMC Modifiers used in Appraising New Medicines
31. European Medicines Agency. Rare disease (orphan) designations. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/orphan_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d12b (2013). Accessed 15 November 2013
32. Faulkner, E., Matuszewski, K., Niziol, C.: ISPOR global health care systems road map. Sweden—Pharmaceutical. https://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Sweden.asp (2009). Accessed 15 March 2014
33. Bauer, M., Gaskell, G.: Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. A practical handbook for social research. Sage Publishing, London (2003)
34. European Commission. Transparency Directive 89/105/EEC. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/healthcare/competitiveness/pricing-reimbursement/transparency/index_en.htm#h2-2 (1989). Accessed 15 January 2013
35. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data software (2012). (version 10)
36. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V.: Chapter 7: analyzing and interpreting data in mixed methods research. In: Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. (eds.) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, pp. 203–205. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2011)
37. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013. TX: StataCorp LP
38. Hoffman, D.L., Franke, G.R.: Correspondence analysis—graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. J. Mark. Res. 23(3), 213–227 (1986)
39. Friendly, M.: Statistical graphics for multivariate data. Sugi 16—Proceedings of the sixteenth annual Sas users group international conference pp.1157–1162 (1991)
40. Bartholomew, D., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., Galbraith, J.: Analysis of multivariate social sciences data, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Florida (2008)
41. Cohen, J.: Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20(1), 37–46 (1960)
42. Altman, D.: Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London (1991)
43. National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence. Supplementary advice: Appraising life-extending and end of life treatments. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2 (2009). Accessed 15 August 2009
44. Svensson, M., Nilsson, F.O.L., Arnberg, K.: Reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics 33(11), 1229–1236 (2015)
45. Towse, A.: Value based pricing, research and development, and patient access schemes. Will the United Kingdom get it right or wrong? Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 70(3), 360–366 (2010)
46. Russo, P., Mennini, F.S., Siviero, P.D., Rasi, G.: Time to market and patient access to new oncology products in Italy: a multistep pathway from European context to regional health care providers. Ann. Oncol. 21(10), 2081–2087 (2010)
47. Ferrario, A., Kanavos. P.:Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. EMINET. Brussels, Belgium. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50513/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Ferrario%2C%20A_Ferrario_Managed_%20entry_%20agreements_2013_Ferrario_Managed_%20entry_%20agreements_2013.pdf (2013). Accessed 15 November 2014
48. Boggild, M., Palace, J., Barton, P., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Bregenzer, T., Dobson, C., et al.: Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator. Brit. Med. J. 339, b4677 (2009)
49. Kesselheim, A.S., Myers, J.A., Avorn, J.: Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. Jama J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305(22), 2320–2326 (2011)
50. Bell, S., Smith, C.: A comparison of interventional clinical trials in rare versus non-rare diseases: an analysis of ClinicalTrials gov. Orph. J. Rare. Dis. 9, 170 (2014)
51. Berger, M.L., Martin, B.C., Husereau, D., Worley, K., Allen, J.D., Yang, W.N., et al.: A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health 17(2), 143–156 (2014)
52. McClimans, L.M., Browne, J.: Choosing a patient-reported outcome measure. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 32(1), 47–60 (2011)
53. European Medicines Agency. Pilot project on adaptive licensing2014
54. Eichler, H.G., Oye, K., Baird, L.G., Abadie, E., Brown, J., Drum, C.L., et al.: Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 91(3), 426–437 (2012)
55. Doward, L.C., Gnanasakthy, A., Baker, M.G.: Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim. Health Qual. Life Outcome. 8, 89 (2010)
56. Facey, K.: Policy forum 2015 background Paper: improving the effectiveness and efficiency of evidence production for HTA in the light of current trends in drug and device development, health system funding, regulation and HTA Health Technology Assessment International. Edmonton. 2015
57. Kaplan, W., Wirtz, V., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A., Stolk, P., Duthey, B., Laing, R.: Priority medicines for Europe and the world 2013 update. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/MasterDocJune28_FINAL_Web.pdf (2013). Accessed 15 February 2014
58. ISPOR. MCDA for health care decisions: emerging good practices. In: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Task Force. https://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/Emerging-GP-for-MCDA-in-HC-Decisions-Report2-Draft.pdf (2015). Accessed 15 January 2016
59. EVIDEM. Decision Criteria. Conceptual background, definitions, design & instructions (Vol. V3.0): EVIDEM Collaboration. https://www.evidem.org/docs/2015/EVIDEM-v3-0-Decision-criteria-conceptual-background-definitions-and-instructions-June-2015b.pdf (2015). Acessed 15 December 2015
60. Paulden, M., Stafinski, T., Menon, D., McCabe, C.: Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3), 255–269 (2015)
61. Stafinski, T., Menon, D., McCabe, C., Philippon, D.J.: To fund or not to fund development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies. Pharmacoeconomics 29(9), 771–780 (2011)