ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Impact of health technology assessment and managed entry schemes on reimbursement decisions of centrally authorised medicinal products in Belgium.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCentrally authorised medicinal products (CAMPs) in the European Union may offer added therapeutic value (ATV) but may be linked to high prices and limited efficiency. Health technology assessment (HTA) and managed entry schemes (MES) may facilitate the reimbursement decision by providing reliable estimates of the medicinal product's value and costs and by controlling the remaining uncertainty, respectively. We investigated the impact of HTA criteria and the initiation of a MES on the reimbursement decision of CAMPs in Belgium.
methodsWe selected all reimbursement submissions for new centrally authorised medicinal products in the 2010-2015 period. We retrieved data relating to the reimbursement decision, the HTA outcome and the use of a managed entry scheme.
resultsThe decision of the Minister was available for 115 dossiers, covering 36 (31.3%) orphan medicinal products (OMPs) and 79 ATV products. A MES was used in 41 submissions. A positive reimbursement decision was obtained in 65% of cases. The significant factors affecting the reimbursement decision were the approval of ATV, the medical need if it was considered 'important or major' and the use of a managed entry scheme. Price, budget impact and efficiency had no significant impact.
conclusionsAdded therapeutic value and high medical need increase the odds for a positive reimbursement decision. No impact could be demonstrated of the cost-related HTA criteria. Cost elements may be biased by the use of a confidential MES. Without a MES, only 53% of the centrally authorised medicinal products, including OMPs, are reimbursed in Belgium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30877328What 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.