ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2011
Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Value and Implementation of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Health Technology Assessment for Japan: implications from systematic searches.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence Needs for Medicinal Products in Europe With a Focus on Real-World Evidence.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2020Review
- Stakeholder opinions on value in healthcare.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2019Article
- Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Review
- HTA Implementation Roadmap in Central and Eastern European Countries.Health economics · 2016Article
- From market access to patient access: overview of evidence-based approaches for the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals in 36 European countries.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Article
- The use of research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development: exploratory study into current state of play and potential barriers.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Transparency in reimbursement decisions: in whose best interest?PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Decision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare centralized reimbursement/coverage decision-making processes for health technologies in 23 European countries, according to: mandate, authority, structure, and policy options; mechanisms for identifying, selecting, and evaluating technologies; clinical and economic evidence expectations; committee composition, procedures, and factors considered; available conditional reimbursement options for promising new technologies; and the manufacturers' roles in the process.
methodsA comprehensive review of publicly available information from peer-reviewed literature (using a variety of bibliographic databases) and gray literature (eg, working papers, committee reports, presentations, and government documents) was conducted. Policy experts in each of the 23 countries were also contacted. All information collected was reviewed by two independent researchers.
resultsMost European countries have established centralized reimbursement systems for making decisions on health technologies. However, the scope of technologies considered, as well as processes for identifying, selecting, and reviewing them varies. All systems include an assessment of clinical evidence, compiled in accordance with their own guidelines or internationally recognized published ones. In addition, most systems require an economic evaluation. The quality of such information is typically assessed by content and methodological experts. Committees responsible for formulating recommendations or decisions are multidisciplinary. While criteria used by committees appear transparent, how they are operationalized during deliberations remains unclear. Increasingly, reimbursement systems are expressing interest in and/or implementing reimbursement policy options that extend beyond the traditional "yes," "no," or "yes with restrictions" options. Such options typically require greater involvement of manufacturers which, to date, has been limited.
conclusionCentralized reimbursement systems have become an important policy tool in many European countries. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of transparency around critical elements, such as how multiple factors or criteria are weighed during committee deliberations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.