Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:18:17.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EUROPEAN DRUG REIMBURSEMENT SYSTEMS' LEGITIMACY: FIVE-COUNTRY COMPARISON AND POLICY TOOL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2012

Irina Cleemput ,
Margreet Franken ,
Marc Koopmanschap  and
Maïté le Polain
Irina Cleemput
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium, and Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]
Margreet Franken
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management (BMG), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Marc Koopmanschap
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management (BMG), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Maïté le Polain
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives. In a democratic system, decision makers are accountable for the reasonableness of their decisions. This presumes (i) transparency, (ii) relevance of the decision criteria, (iii) revisability of decisions, and (iv) enforcement/regulation. We aim to (i) evaluate the extent to which drug reimbursement decision-making processes in different contexts meet these conditions and (ii) develop, starting from these findings, a framework for improving the transparency and the relevance of used decision criteria.

Methods. We evaluated the Austrian, Belgian, French, Dutch, and Swedish drug reimbursement systems. Based on this evaluation, we developed a framework for improving the transparency of drug reimbursement decision-making processes. It makes explicit the questions often addressed implicitly during decision-making processes as well as criteria for answering each question.

Results. Transparency of appraisal processes varies across systems. Justification with explicit criteria is generally limited. Although relevant criteria are similar across systems, their operationalization varies and their role in the appraisal process is not always clear. All systems seem to implicitly address five key questions, relating to (i) the medical, therapeutic, and societal need for treatment; (ii) preparedness to pay for treating the condition as a principle and (iii) for using the treatment under consideration; (iv) preparedness to pay more compared with alternatives; and (v) actual willingness to pay from public resources.

Conclusions. Transparency of the appraisal process can be improved by using an explicit decision framework. Systematic use of such a framework enhances consistency across decisions, allows justification of value judgments, and thus enhances legitimacy of societal decision making.

Keywords

Drug reimbursementDecision makingAdvisory committeesPharmaceutical economics
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 358 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Annemans, L, Arickx, F, Belle, O, et al.A call to make valuable innovative medicines accessible in the European Union. In: Cock, JD, ed. Recommendations for a coordinated action to stimulate, measure and valorise pharmaceutical innovation. Backgound report for the ministerial conference 23–24 September 2010. Brussels: Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union; 2010:55.Google Scholar
2.Claxton, K. Oft, Vbp: Qed? Health Econ. 2007;16:545–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Cleemput, I, Neyt, M, Thiry, N, De Laet, C, Leys, M. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. Brussels: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheiszorg/Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé/Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2008.Google Scholar
4.Cleemput, I, van Wilder, P, Huybrechts, M, Vrijens, F. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health. 2009;12:441–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Cookson, R, Dolan, P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:323–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Culyer, AJ. The principle objective of the NHS should be to maximise aggregate health. In: New, B, ed. Rationing: Talk and action in health care. London: King's Fund and British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1997.Google Scholar
7.Daniels, N, Sabin, J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26:303–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Daniels, N, Teagarden, JR, Sabin, JE. An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:125–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Denis, A, Mergaert, L, Fostier, C, Cleemput, I, Simoens, S. [Orphan diseases and orphan medicines: A Belgian and European study]. J Pharm Belg. 2009:131–137.Google Scholar
10.Denis, A, Mergaert, L, Fostier, C, Cleemput, I, Simoens, S. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy. 2010;97:173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Hasman, A, Hope, T, Osterdal, LP. Health care need: Three interpretations. J Appl Philos. 2006;23:145–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.High Level Group on Health Services and Medical Care. Background document setting out health system objectives of particular interest to different European committees. Surrey: European Commission; 2004.Google Scholar
13.Hutton, J, McGrath, C, Frybourg, JM, et al.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Jansson, S. Implementing accountability for reasonableness–the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden. Health Econ Policy Law. 2007;2 (pt 2):153–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.LFN. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Board: Areas of responsibility and tasks. Solna: Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden; 2002.Google Scholar
16.McCabe, C, Claxton, K, Tsuchiya, A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? BMJ. 2005;331:1016–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.McKie, J, Richardson, J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:2407–2419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Nord, E. Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of healthcare interventions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001;1:85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Obyn, C, Cleemput, I. The capital cost and productivity of MRI in a Belgian setting. JBR-BTR. 2010;93:92–96.Google Scholar
20.Pasternack, I, Anttila, H, Makela, M, et al.Testing the HTA core model: Experiences from two pilot projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):21–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Schotte, E. Een onderzoek naar mogelijke factoren die een impact kunnen hebben op de terugbetalingsbeslissing van geneesmiddelen. Masterthesis “Management en Beleid van Gezondheidszorg”. Ghent: UGent; 2009.Google Scholar
22.Senn, A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, M, Senn, A, eds. The quality of life. Oxford; Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
23.Stevens, A, Milne, R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Stolk, EA, van Donselaar, G, Brouwer, WBF, Busschbach, JJV. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: Illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Syrett, K. Health technology appraisal and the courts: Accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:469–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Thomson, S, Foubister, T, Figueras, J, et al.Addressing financial sustainability in health systems. Policy summary. Copenhagen: WHO; 2009.Google Scholar
27.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Strategic Plan Fiscal year 2010–2015. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
28.van de Wetering, EJ, Stolk, EA, van Exel, NJ, Brouwer, WB. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ. 2011 [Epub ahead of print].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Williams, A. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 1997;6:117–132.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Zwaap, J, Mastenbroek, CG, van der Holt, B, van der Heijden, LA. Pakketbeheer in Praktijk 2. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2009.Google Scholar