ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015
From market access to patient access: overview of evidence-based approaches for the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals in 36 European countries.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Post-Authorisation Maze: Mapping of European Pharmaceutical Market Access Pathways in the Early JCA Era.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia in Europe: A descriptive review.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Review
- Journey from an Enabler to a Strategic Leader: Integration of the Medical Affairs Function in ESG Initiatives and Values.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2023Article
- Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- International Market Access Strategies for Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Can We Standardize the Process to Faster Patient Access?Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
- The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Review
- Current status of health technology assessment research in Japan.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Making pharmaceutical research and regulation work for women.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Pharmaceutical companies' views on a health technology assessment (HTA) entity in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020Article
- Timely, consistent, transparent assessment of market access evidence: implementing tools based on the HTA Core Model® in a pharmaceutical company.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2019Article
- Decision-making criteria for medicine reimbursement in Slovenia: an expert panel discussion.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Equity, barriers and cancer disparities: study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the access to oncologic drugs in the Spanish Regions.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2017Article
- Setting priorities in the health care sector - the case of oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in Denmark.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
- Published and unpublished evidence in coverage decision-making for pharmaceuticals in Europe: existing approaches and way forward.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoverage decisions determining the benefit baskets of health systems have been increasingly relying on evidence regarding patient benefit and costs. Relevant structures, methodologies, and processes have especially been established for pharmaceuticals but approaches differ. The objective of this work was thus to identify institutions in a broad range of European countries (n = 36) in charge of determining the value of pharmaceuticals for pricing and reimbursement purposes and to map their decision-making process; to examine the different approaches and consider national and supranational possibilities for best practice.
methodsInstitutions were identified through websites of international networks, ministries, and published literature. Details on institutional practices were supplemented with information from institution websites and linked online sources.
resultsThe type and extent of information available varied considerably across countries. Different types of public regulatory bodies are involved in pharmaceutical coverage decisions, assuming a range of responsibilities. As a rule, the assessment of scientific evidence is kept structurally separate from its appraisal. Recommendations on value are uniformly issued by specific committees within or commissioned by responsible institutions; these institutions often also act as decision-makers on reimbursement status and level or market price. While effectiveness and costs are important criteria in all countries, the latter are often considered on a case-by-case basis. In all countries, manufacturer applications, including relevant evidence, are used as one of the main sources of information for the assessment.
conclusionTransparency of evidence-based coverage decisions should be enhanced. International collaboration can facilitate knowledge exchange, improve efficiency of information production, and strengthen new or developing systems.
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.