A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies-evidence from the real world.

OBJECTIVE Quantitative analysis of real-world coverage decision-making offers insights into the revealed preferences of appraisal committees. Aim of this review was to structure empirical evidence of coverage decisions made in practice based on the components 'methods and evidence', 'criteria and standards', 'decision outcome' and 'processes'. METHODS Several electronic databases, key journals and decision committees' websites were searched for publications between 1993 and June 2011. Inclusion criteria were the analysis of past decisions and application of quantitative methods. Each study was categorized by the scope of decision-making and the components covered by the variables used in quantitative analysis. RESULTS Thirty-two studies were identified. Many focused on pharmaceuticals, the UK NICE or the Australian PBAC. The components were covered comprehensively, but heterogeneously. Seventy-two variables were identified of which the following were more prevalent: specifications of the decision outcome; the indications considered for appraisal, identification of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, appropriateness of evaluation methods, type of economic or clinical evidence used for assessment, and the decision date. CONCLUSIONS Research was dominated by analysis of decision outcomes and appraisal criteria. Although common approaches were identified, the complexity of coverage decision-making - reflected by the heterogeneity of identified variables - will continue to challenge empirical research.

[1]  A. Anis,et al.  Using Economic Evaluations to Make Formulary Coverage Decisions , 2000, PharmacoEconomics.

[2]  Harpreet S. Kohli,et al.  Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe – Current Status, Challenges and Potential , 2010 .

[3]  David Parkin,et al.  Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. , 2004, Health economics.

[4]  J. Schreyögg,et al.  Impact of Cross-Reference Pricing on Pharmaceutical Prices , 2006, Applied health economics and health policy.

[5]  A. Anis,et al.  A Dog’s Breakfast:: Prescription Drug Coverage Varies Widely Across Canada , 2001, Medical care.

[6]  James Raftery,et al.  Commentary: A clinical challenge , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Jing Jing Li,et al.  Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. , 2009, JAMA.

[8]  S. Hill,et al.  Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. , 2000, JAMA.

[9]  Mita Giacomini,et al.  Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. , 2007, Health policy.

[10]  M. Stockler,et al.  Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[11]  M. Drummond,et al.  Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs : The fourth hurdle , 2017 .

[12]  Marianne Klemp,et al.  What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements? , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  Reiner Leidl,et al.  A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. , 2011, Health policy.

[14]  Charalabos-Markos Dintsios,et al.  Reflections on the Changing Face of German Pharmaceutical Policy , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[15]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  P. Scuffham,et al.  The Use of QALY Weights for QALY Calculations , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[17]  N. Daniels,et al.  The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. , 1998, Health affairs.

[18]  M. Schechter,et al.  Using Pharmacoeconomic Analysis to Make Drug Insurance Coverage Decisions , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[19]  G. Priol,et al.  What criteria for pharmaceuticals reimbursement? , 2003, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[20]  D. Reith,et al.  The impact of pharmaceutical cost containment policies on the range of medicines available and subsidized in Finland and New Zealand. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[21]  W. Rogowski An economic theory of the fourth hurdle. , 2013, Health economics.

[22]  Laura B Faden,et al.  Comparing Patient Access to Pharmaceuticals in the UK and US , 2006, Applied health economics and health policy.

[23]  C. Mitton,et al.  Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. , 2006, Health affairs.

[24]  M. Niezen,et al.  The Increasingly Complex Fourth Hurdle for Pharmaceuticals , 2007, PharmacoEconomics.

[25]  A. Harris,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and the Consistency of Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[26]  Clare McGrath,et al.  Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems) , 2006, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[27]  D. Menon,et al.  The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[28]  Corinna Sorenson,et al.  Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. , 2010, Issue brief.

[29]  Nancy J Devlin,et al.  "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. , 2006, Health policy.

[30]  Martina Garau,et al.  Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  Jing Jing Li,et al.  The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004 , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  C. Carroll,et al.  Evidence Review Group approaches to the critical appraisal of manufacturer submissions for the NICE STA process: a mapping study and thematic analysis. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[33]  A. Anell Priority setting for pharmaceuticals , 2004, The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC.

[34]  Peer C. Fiss A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations , 2007 .

[35]  M. Giacomini How good is good enough? Standards in policy decisions to cover new health technologies. , 2007, Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante.

[36]  N. Sood,et al.  The effect of regulation on pharmaceutical revenues: experience in nineteen countries. , 2008, Health affairs.

[37]  Bengt Jönsson,et al.  The costs and benefits of regulations for reimbursement of new drugs. , 2006, Health policy.

[38]  N. Devlin,et al.  An Analysis of NICE’s ‘Restricted’ (or ‘Optimized’) Decisions , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[39]  P. Littlejohns,et al.  The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Its Role in Assessing the Value of New Cancer Treatments in England and Wales , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.

[40]  Hanna Toiviainen,et al.  Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--a review of empirical studies. , 2008, Health policy.

[41]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Health Technology Funding Decision-Making Processes Around the World , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[42]  D. Menon,et al.  Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions , 2011, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[43]  T. Philipson,et al.  Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption. , 2013, Journal of health economics.

[44]  Out-patient drug policy by clinical assessment rather than financial constraints? , 2004, The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC.

[45]  Leonie Segal,et al.  Fixing the game: are between-silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start? , 2010, Health economics.

[46]  Panos Kanavos,et al.  The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison , 2010 .

[47]  W. Rogowski,et al.  Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine , 2008, BMC health services research.

[48]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Drug coverage decisions: the role of dollars and values. , 2000, Health affairs.

[49]  J Hjelmgren,et al.  Health economic guidelines--similarities, differences and some implications. , 2001, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[50]  C. Mitton,et al.  Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research. , 2009, Health economics.

[51]  Michael Drummond,et al.  Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric? , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[52]  S. Erntoft,et al.  Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[53]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe , 2011, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[54]  J. Lexchin,et al.  Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. , 2008, The American journal of managed care.

[55]  A. Miners,et al.  Exploration of the difference in results of economic submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence by manufacturers and assessment groups , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[56]  J. Schreyögg,et al.  Availability of and Access to Orphan Drugs , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[57]  N. Powe,et al.  Technology coverage decisions by health care plans and considerations by medical directors. , 1997, Medical care.

[58]  M. Drummond,et al.  Public funding of new cancer drugs: Is NICE getting nastier? , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[59]  Anthony J. Culyer,et al.  The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[60]  Joshua P Cohen,et al.  Can Medicare Draw Lessons from Dutch Experience with a National Formulary? , 2007 .

[61]  K. Chalkidou,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. , 2009, The Milbank quarterly.

[62]  P. Neumann,et al.  Medicare's national coverage decisions for technologies, 1999-2007. , 2008, Health affairs.

[63]  R. Busse,et al.  Defining the “Health Benefit Basket” in nine European countries , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[64]  Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in The Netherlands , 2009, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[65]  J. Kutzin,et al.  A descriptive framework for country-level analysis of health care financing arrangements. , 2001, Health policy.