Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court

  • Floortje Moes (a1), Eddy Houwaart (a1), Diana Delnoij (a2) and Klasien Horstman (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

This paper examines a remarkable lawsuit in health care rationing. The Patients Association for Interstitial Cystitis sued the Dutch National Health Care Institute for alleged misconduct against Interstitial Cystitis patients, as the Institute decided that bladder instillations with chondroitin sulphate or hyaluronic acid are no longer covered by the basic health insurance. The patients’ organisation challenged the Institute for basing its standpoint on scientific evidence; overruling clinical expertise and patients’ experiences. While scientific advice is often solicited in public health issues, simultaneously, the authority of scientific advice is increasingly being questioned in the public domain. Also, the judiciary is frequently called upon to adjudicate in rationing decisions. Based on an ethnographic study of the National Health Care Institute, drawing on insights from the field of Science and Technology Studies, we analyse this lawsuit as a negotiation of what knowledge counts in reimbursement decisions.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: F. Moes, Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Email: f.moes@maastrichtuniversity.nl
References
Hide All
Armstrong D. (2002), ‘Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors’ behaviour’, Social Science & Medicine, 55: 17711777.
Bijker W. E., Bal R. and Hendriks R. (2009), The Paradox of Scientific Authority the Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boon W., Martins L. and Koopmanschap M. (2015), ‘Governance of conditional reimbursement practices in the Netherlands’, Health Policy, 119(2): 180185.
Booth A. (2010), ‘On hierarchies, malarkeys and anarchies of evidence: using evidence in practice’, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27(1): 8488.
Carel H. and Kidd I. J. (2014), ‘Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17(4): 529540.
CVZ (2007), Beoordeling stand van de wetenschap en praktijk, Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen.
CVZ (2012), Rapport: Voorwaardelijke toelating/financiering van zorg, Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen.
CVZ (2013a), Achtergrondrapportage beoordeling stand van de wetenschap en praktijk. Blaasvloeistoffen met chondroïtinesulfaat en/of hyaluronzuur, Volume 2013084487. Diemen: CVZ.
CVZ (2013b), Update literatuursearch beoordeling stand van de wetenschap en praktijk blaasvloeistoffen met chondroïtinesulfaat en/of hyaluronzuur, Volume 2013142499. Diemen: CVZ.
Daniels N. and Sabin J. (1997), ‘Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 26(4): 303350.
Daston L. and Galison P. (1992), ‘The image of objectivity’, Representations, 40(Fall): 81128.
De Groot G. R. J. (2006), ‘GEZICHTSPUNT – De stand van de wetenschap en praktijk’, Tijdschrift Voor Gezondheidsrecht, 30: 326.
De Laet M. (2012), ‘Anthropology as Social Epistemology?’, Social Epistemology, 26: 419433.
Fricker M. (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing** (p. 7), New York, NY: Oxford.
Gkeredakis E., Swan J., Nicolini D. and Scarbrough H. (2011), Rational judgement revisited: Practices of deliberation in healthcare funding decisions. In OLKC conference, Hull University Business School (pp. 12–14).
Greenhalgh T. (2002), Intuition and evidence – uneasy bedfellows? The British Journal of General Practice, 52(478): 395400.
Greenhalgh T., Howick J. and Maskrey N. (2014), ‘Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?’, British Medical Journal (clinical Research Ed.), 348: g3725.
Greenhalgh T., Snow R., Ryan S., Rees S. and Salisbury H. (2015), ‘Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine’, BMC Medicine, 13(1): 1.
Guyatt G., Oxman A. D., Akl E. A., Kunz R., Vist G., Brozek J. and Rind D. (2011), ‘GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables’, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4): 383394.
Ham C. and Roberts G. (2003), Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Heymans J. M., Kleijnen S. and Verstijnen I. M. (2013), ‘Passend bewijs bij het bepalen van effectiviteit van interventies’, Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde, 157: A5479.
Hoppe R. (1999), ‘Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’ ’, Science and Public Policy, 26: 201210.
Horstman K. (2014), ‘Struggling with science and democracy. Public health and citizenship in the Netherlands’, in F. Huisman and H. Oosterhuis (eds) Health and Citizenship. Political Cultures of Health in Modern Europe, London: Pickering and Chattoo Publication, 191208.
Jenkings K. N. and Barber N. (2004), ‘What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision making?’, Social Science & Medicine, 58(9): 17571766.
Klein R. and Maybin J. (2012), Thinking About Rationing, London: King’s Fund.
Knorr-Cetina K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knorr-Cetina K. (2007), ‘Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32: 361375.
Latour B. (1993), We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leiber S., Gress S. and Heinemann S. (2015), ‘Explaining different paths in social health insurance countries - health system change and cross-border lesson-drawing between Germany, Austria and the Netherlands’, Social Policy & Administration, 49: 88108.
Morales L. (2015), ‘Taking facts seriously: judicial intervention in public health controversies’, Public Health Ethics, 8(2): 185195.
Moreira T. (2011), ‘Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: a conceptual model’, Social Science & Medicine, 72: 13331341.
Moreira T. (2012), The Transformation of Contemporary Health Care: the Market, the Laboratory, and the Forum, New York, NY: Routledge.
Nickel J. C., Hanno P., Kumar K. and Thomas H. (2012), ‘Second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation of effectiveness and safety of intravesical sodium chondroitin sulfate compared with inactive vehicle control in subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome’, Urology, 79: 12201224.
Nickel J. C., Egerdie R. B., Downey J., Singh R., Skehan A., Carr L. and Irvine‐Bird K. (2008), ‘A real‐life multicentre clinical practice study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravesical chondroitin sulphate for the treatment of interstitial cystitis’, BJU International**, 103(1): 5660.
Nickel J. C., Egerdie R. B., Steinhoff G., Palmer B. and Hanno P. (2010), ‘A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group pilot evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intravesical sodium chondroitin sulfate versus vehicle control in patients with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome’, Urology, 76: 804809.
Nordling J., Fall M. and Hanno P. (2012), ‘Global concepts of bladder pain syndrome (interstitial cystitis)’, World Journal of Urology, 30(4): 457464.
Offiah I., Mcmahon S. B. and O’Reilly B. A. (2013), ‘Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: diagnosis and management’, International Urogynecology Journal, 24(8): 12431256.
Parkhurst J. O. and Abeysinghe S. (2014), ‘What constitutes ‘Good’ evidence for public health and social policy making? From hierarchies to appropriateness’, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(10): 3446.
Petticrew M and Roberts H. (2003), Evidence, Hierarchies, and Typologies: Horses for Courses, BMJ Group.
Riles A (ed.) (2006), Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Russell J. and Greenhalgh T. (2012), ‘Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service’, Social Science & Medicine, 75(12): 24632471.
Russell J. and Greenhalgh T. (2014), ‘Being ‘rational’and being ‘human’: How National Health Service rationing decisions are constructed as rational by resource allocation panels’, Health, 18(5): 441457.
Russell J., Greenhalgh T., Burnett A. and Montgomery J. (2011), ‘No decisions about us without us? Individual healthcare rationing in a fiscal ice age’, British Medical Journal, 342(1): d3279d3279.
Sackett D. L., Rosenberg W. M. C., Muir Gray J. A. and Brian Haynes R. (1996), ‘Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t’, British Medical Journal, 312: 71.
Shao Y., Shen Z. J., Rui W. B. and Zhou W. L. (2010), ‘Intravesical instillation of hyaluronic acid prolonged the effect of bladder hydrodistention in patients with severe interstitial cystitis’, Urology, 75: 547550.
Syrett K. (2013), ‘Courts, expertise and resource allocation: is there a judicial ‘Legitimacy Problem’?’ Public Health Ethics, **pht040.
Van De Ven W. P. and Schut F. T. (2008), ‘Universal mandatory health insurance in the Netherlands: a model for the United States?’, Health Affairs (Project Hope), 27(3): 771781.
Van De Ven W. P. and Schut F. T. (2009), ‘Managed competition in the Netherlands: still work in progress’, Health Economics, 18: 253255.
Van Donk R. N. and Tusschenbroek M. (2005), ‘Kroniek rechtspraak zorgverzekeringsrecht’, Tijdschrift Voor Gezondheidsrecht, 29: 563572.
Wait S. and Nolte E. (2006), ‘Public involvement policies in health: exploring theirconceptual basis’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 1: 149162.
Wang D. W. (2013), ‘Courts and health care rationing: the case of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 8(1): 7593.
Wiering B., Boer D. and Delnoij D. (2016), Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expectations**.
Weingart P. (1999), ‘Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics’, Science and Public Policy, 26(3): 151161.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 559
Total number of PDF views: 391 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 684 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th November 2016 - 18th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.