Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:08:30.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Coverage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Richard Cranovsky ,
Yves Matillon  and
David Banta
Richard Cranovsky
Affiliation:
Swiss Medical Association, Aarau, Switzerland
Yves Matillon
Affiliation:
National Agency for the Development of Medical Evaluation (ANDEM), Paris, France
David Banta
Affiliation:
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The issue of health benefits coverage—and its relation to health technology assessment (HTA)—has gained increasing attention in recent years. Economic constraints on health care, as well as the rapid pace of technological change, have forced European countries to face difficult choices in providing such care. The active use of coverage decision making has been proposed as a tool to help rationalize health care, and HTA has been advocated as a necessary activity to improve coverage decisions.

Type
Special Section: Report from the Eur-Assess Project Eur-Assess
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 287 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.Abel-Smith, B.Value for money in health services: A comparative study. London: Heineman, 1976.Google Scholar
2.Academisch Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, . Cochlear Implants. Eindverslag project ont wikkelingsgeneeskunde 1988–1990. Sint Radboudziekenhuis, Nijmegen and Instituut voor Doven, Sint-Michielsbestel. Publikatienummer: IvD/R&D/9104/01. 08 1991.Google Scholar
3.Utrecht, Academish Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, Academisch Ziekenhuis, Doven, Instituut Voor, StMichielsgestel, . Eindsverslag Cochleaire Implantatie bij Volwassenen OG91/010. 02 1995.Google Scholar
4.Agence Nationale pour le Développement de l'Evaluation Médicale (ANDEM). L'implant cochleaire chex l'enfant sourd prelingual. Paris, 09 1994.Google Scholar
5.Agencia de Evaluatión de Tecnologias Sanitarias (AETS). Implantes cocleares. Penel de expertos. Madrid, 06 1995.Google Scholar
6.American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures. Guidelines and indications for coronary bypass surgery. Circulation, 1991, 83, 1125–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Anonymous. Call for EU definition of “innovation.” SCRIP, 1996, 2106, 4.Google Scholar
8.Bangemann Commissioner. Joint answer to written questions no. 2368/92, 2370/92 given by Mr. Bangemann on behalf of the Commission. 26 11 1992.Google Scholar
9.Banta, H. D., Oortwijn, W. J., & van Beekum, W. T.The organization of health care technology assessment in the Netherlands. The Hague: The Rathanau Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
10.Banta, H. D., & Saxe, L.Reimbursement for psychotherapy: Linking efficacy research and public policy-making. American Psychologist, 1983, 38, 918–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Battista, R., Banta, H. D., Jonsson, E., et al. Lessons from the eight countries. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 397–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Bos, M.Health care technology in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 207–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Bos, M., Sampietro-Colom, L., Schilling, J. (eds.). EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup on Coverage. Technology assessment and coverage policy: The case of invasive cardiology therapy in five European countries. Unpublished background document. Barcelona and Zurich, 1996.Google Scholar
14.Brown, R., & Luce, B.Technology assessment in decision making by health care provider and payers. Washington, DC: Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy Research Center, 1992.Google Scholar
15.Bunker, J., Fowles, J., & Schaffarzick, R.Evaluation of medical technologies strategies: Effects of coverage and reimbursement. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 620–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Commission of the European Communities. Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the outlines for an industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector in the European Community. COM(93) 718, Brussels, 03 2, 1994.Google Scholar
17. Council. Recommendation on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies (92–442). Office Journal of the European Communities, 1992, L245/49.Google Scholar
18.Council decision 75/320/EEC of 20 May 1975 setting up a Pharmaceutical Committee. Office Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 147, 9 06 1975.Google Scholar
19.Cranovsky, R., Dillier, N., Seeger, T., Spillmann, T. (eds.) Documentation der Konsensus-Konferenz: Cochlear implants. Zurich: Schweizerisches Institut fur das Gesundheitswesen, 1993.Google Scholar
20.Cranovsky, R., & Racoveanu, N.Magnetic resonance imaging (MR1): Issues in medical technology and health policy. Cracow: Vesalius University Medical Publisher, 1994.Google Scholar
21. Directive 89/105, 1989. Office Journal of the European Communities, 1989, 40, 8.Google Scholar
22. Directive 75/319, 1975. Official Journal of the European Communities, 1975, 147, 75.Google Scholar
23.Dunning, A. Chairman. Executive summary: Choices in health care. A report by the government Committee on Choices in Health Care (translated into English). Rijswijk, the Netherlands: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, 1992.Google Scholar
24.Eddy, D.Benefit language: Criteria that will improve quality while reducing costs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1996, 275, 650–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Eddy, D.What care is ‘essential’? What services are ‘basic’? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 782–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Euromedicines evaluation: The striptease begins [editorial]. Lancet, 1996, 347, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Fineberg, H. Summing up: Reflections on medical innovation and health care reform. In Gelijns, A., (eds.), Technology and health care in an era of limits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992, 259–53.Google Scholar
28.Finkelstein, S., Isaacson, K., & Frishkopf, J.The process of evaluating medical technologies for third-party coverage. Journal of Health Care Technology, 1984, 1, 89–101.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Frazier, H., & Mosteller, F.Medicine worth paying for. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
30.Glasser, J., & Chrzanowski, R.Medical technology assessment: Adequate questions, appropriate methods, valuable answers. Health Policy, 1988, 9, 267–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Greenberg, B., & Derzon, R.Determining health insurance coverage of technology: Problems and options. Medical Care, 1981, 19, 967–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Ham, C.Contestability: A middle path for health care. British Medical Journal, 1996, 312, 70–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Health Council of the Netherlands, Cardiac Surgery and Interventional Cardiology Committee. Heart surgery and interventional cardiology for adults. The Hague, publication 115/01E, 1995.Google Scholar
34.Jonsson, E., & Banta, D.Health care technology in Sweden. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 257–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Kirchberger, S.Health care technology in the Federal Republic of Germany. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 163–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Koch, P.Government reimbursement policy and medical technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 607–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Lindsey, C. Introduction and conclusions. In Caglarcan, E. et al. , (eds.), The pharmaceutical industry, economics, performance and government regulation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.Google Scholar
38.Luce, B., & Brown, R.The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Medical Research Council (MRC), Institute of Hearing Research. Cochlear implantation in the UK, 1990–1994. Nottingham, 1995.Google Scholar
40.Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs of Spain. Real Decreto 63/1955 (English translation prepared by the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment). Madrid, 1995.Google Scholar
41.Mossialos, E.The regulation of the EU pharmaceutical market. Contract report prepared for the EUR-ASSESS project. London: London School of Economics, 12 1996.Google Scholar
42.The Netherlands Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for PTCA (indications and guidelines for interventional cardiology 1992). Netherlands Journal of Cardiology, 1993, 6,106–15.Google Scholar
43.Office of Technology Assessment. Coverage of laser technology by health insurers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.Google Scholar
44.Oficina Tecnica d'Avaluacio de Tecnologia Medica (OTAMT). Implants coclearsen l'edat periatrica. Barcelona, 05 1993.Google Scholar
45.Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). The reform of health care systems: A review of seventeen OECD countries. Paris: OECD, 1994.Google Scholar
46.Peters, W., & Rogers, M.Variation in approval by insurance companies of coverage for autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 330, 473–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Phillips, K., Luft, H., & Ritchie, J.The association of hospital values of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with adverse outcomes, length of stay, and charges in California. Medical Care, 1995, 33, 502–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Pons, J. M. V., et al. Mechnical coronary revascularisation procedures in Catalonia 1980–1993: Trends in patterns of use and implications. Barcelona, Spain: Catalan Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1992.Google Scholar
49.Powe, N., Steiner, C., Anderson, G., & Das, A.Awareness of providers' use of new medical technology among private health care plans in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 367–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Prognos, A. G.Verbesserung der Lebensqualitat durch Cochlear Implants. Projectnummer 551 4182. Basel, 10 1993.Google Scholar
51. Regulation 2309/93, 1993. Office Journal of the European Communities, 1993, 214, 1.Google Scholar
52.Reiser, S.Criteria for standard versus experimental therapy. Health Affairs, 1994, 13, 127–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Ruby, G., Banta, H. D., & Burns, A. K.Using coverage policy to contain Medicare costs. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1985, 10, 141–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Spiby, J.Health care technology in the United Kingdom. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 295–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Steinberg, E., Tunis, S., & Shapiro, D.Insurance coverage for experimental technologies. Health Affairs, 1995, 14, 143–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56.Steiner, C., Powe, N., & Anderson, G.The review process used by U.S. health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1996, 11, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Steiner, C., Powe, N., & Anderson, G.Technology coverage decisions and consideration used by health plans. Unpublished contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC, 1995.Google Scholar
58.Stocking, B. (ed.). Expensive health technologies: Regulatory and administrative mechanisms in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
59.SundhedsMinisteriet. Sundhedsministerens vesvarelse af spoergsmael nr. 112, stillet den 6. December 1995 fra Folketingets Sundhedsudvalg (Aim. del - bilag 140) apotker; medicin (offentligt). Copenhagen: SundhedsMinisteriet, 12 20, 1995.Google Scholar
60.Sundhedsstyrelsen. β-interferon behandlung af patienter med dissemineret sklerose: Medicinsk tecknologivurdering. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen, 01 1996.Google Scholar
61.The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in coronary revascularisation: Evidence, assessment and policy. Stockholm: SBU, 1992.Google Scholar
62.Swiss 1996 Coronary Revascularization Panel. Swiss guidelines for coronary revascularistion. Zurich, in press.Google Scholar
63.Swiss Federal Office of Social Security. Manual for the standardisation of clinical an economic evaluation of medical technology. Berne: Federal Office of Social Security, 1996.Google Scholar
64.Taylor, D., & Maynard, A.Medicines, Europe and the NHS. London: King's Fund Institute, 1990.Google Scholar
65.Telling, F. Managed care and pharmaceutical innovation. In Gelijns, A., (ed.), Technology and health care in an era of limits. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992, 201–17.Google Scholar
66.Towery, O., & Perry, S.The scientific basis for coverage decisions by third-party payers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981, 245, 59–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67.van der Brand, M., and the European Angioplasty Survey Group. Utilisation of coronary angioplasty and cost of angioplasty disposables in 14 Western European countries. Euro pean Heart Journal, 1993, 14, 391–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68.Weill, C.Health care technology in France. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 123–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69.Williams, A.Priority setting in public and private health care: A guide through the ideological jungle. Journal of Health Economics, 1988, 7, 173–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed