Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study

  • Elena Nicod (a1), Laia Maynou (a2) (a3), Erica Visintin (a4) and John Cairns (a5)

Abstract

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email: elena@nicod.com

References

Hide All
Banta, D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63, 121132.
Cerri, KH, Knapp, M and Fernandez, JL (2014) Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context. Health Economics, Policy, and Law 9, 119141.
Cerri, KH, Knapp, M and Fernandez, JL (2015) Untangling the complexity of funding recommendations: a comparative analysis of health technology assessment in four European countries. Pharmaceutical Medicine 29, 341359.
Charokopou, M, Majer, IM, Raad, JD, et al. (2015) Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendations in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006–2013. Value in Health 18, 284291.
Chevreil, K, Berg Brigham, K, Durand-Zaleski, I and Hernandez-Quevedo, C (2015) France: health system review. Health Systems in Transition 17, 1218.
Clement, FM, Harris, A, Li, JJ, Yong, K, Lee, KM, Manns, BJ, Charokopou, M, Majer, IM, Raad, Jd, Broekhuizen, S, Postma, M, Heeg, B, Dakin, H, Devlin, N, Feng, Y, Rice, N, O'Neill, P and Parkin, D (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions, a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. Journal of the American Medical Association 302, 14371443.
Creswell, J and Plano Clark, V (2011 a) Chapter 6. Collecting data in mixed methods research. In Creswell, J and Plano Clark, V (eds), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. pp. 171–202.
Creswell, J and Plano Clark, V (2011 b) Chapter 3. Choosing a mixed methods design. In Creswell, J and Plano Clark, V (eds), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 53–106.
Dakin, H, Devlin, NJ and Odeyemi, IAO (2006) “Yes, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 77, 352367.
Dakin, H, Devlin, N, Feng, Y, et al. (2015) The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Economics 24, 12561271.
Devlin, N and Parkin, D (2004) Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Economics 13, 437452.
Ferrario, A and Kanavos, P (2015) Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. Social Science & Medicine (1982) 124, 3947.
Fischer, KE (2012) A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies-evidence from the real world. Health Policy 107, 218230.
Fischer, KE, Rogowski, WH and Stollenwerk, B (2013) Transparency vs. closed-door policy: do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis. Health Policy 112, 187196.
Garau, M and Mestre-Ferrandiz, J (2009) Access mechanisms for orphan drugs: a comparative study of selected European countries. OHE Briefing 52.
Gerring, J. What is a case study? The problem of definition. In Gerring, J (ed.), Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge, United States: University Press, 2007. pp. 27–29.
HAS – Commission de Transparence, Haute Autorité de Santé (2014) Évaluation des médicaments en vue de leur remboursement. Available at http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/plugins/ModuleXitiKLEE/types/FileDocument/doXiti.jsp?id=c_1121797 (Accessed 1 December 2016).
Kanavos, P, Nicod, E, Pomedli, S and van den Aardweg, S (2010) The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. EuroObserver 12, 17.
Mason, AR and Drummond, M (2009) Public funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE getting nastier? European Journal of Cancer 45, 11881192.
Maynou, L and Cairns, J (2015) Why do some countries approve a cancer drug and others don't? Journal of Cancer Policy 4, 2125.
Maynou, L and Cairns, J (2016) An empirical analysis of drug reimbursement decisions in 10 European countries. LSHTM-THETA Working Paper N°2.
Maynou, L and Cairns, J (2019) What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries. Health Policy 123, 130139.
Mertens, D (2011) Publishing mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 5, 36.
NICE – National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015) Single technology appraisal: User guide for company evidence submission template. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg24/chapter/instructions-for-companies (Accessed 1 December 2016).
Nicod, E (2017) Why do HTA coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across four European countries? Applying a mixed methods framework to a sample of orphan drug decisions. The European Journal of Health Economics 18, 715730.
Nicod, E and Kanavos, P (2012) Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy 108, 167177.
Nicod, E and Kanavos, P (2016 a) Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions across countries: a mixed methods study. Health Policy 120, 3545.
Nicod, E and Kanavos, P (2016 b) Scientific and social value judgments for orphan drugs in HTA. International Journal of Technology Assessment 32, 218232.
Nicod, E, Berg Brigham, K and Durand-Zaleski, I (2017) Dealing with uncertainty and accounting for social value judgments in value assessments for orphan drugs: evidence from four European countries. Value in Health 20, 919926.
Schwarzer, R and Siebert, U (2009) Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment 25, 305314.
SMC – Scottish Medicines Consortium (2016) New Product Assessment Form. Available at https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/submissionprocess/NPAF_Template_Final_March_2016.doc (Accessed 1 December 2016).
Svensson, M, Nilsson, FOL and Arnberg, K (2015) Reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics 33, 12291236.
TLV – The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (2016) Guide for companies when applying for subsidies and pricing for pharmaceutical products (Version 2.0). Available at http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/ENG-guide-for-companies.pdf (Accessed 1 December 2016).
Wijnands, T, Kreeftmeijer, J, Kooreman, PJ, Wagner, P and Van Engen, A (2016) Nice collateral effect: what is the influence of nice on other HTA bodies? Value in Health 19, A486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.808.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Nicod et al. supplementary material
Nicod et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (29 KB)
29 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Nicod et al. supplementary material
Nicod et al. supplementary material 2

 Unknown (76 KB)
76 KB

Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study

  • Elena Nicod (a1), Laia Maynou (a2) (a3), Erica Visintin (a4) and John Cairns (a5)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed