ArticleBMC health services research2020
Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Community participation and stakeholder engagement in determining health service coverage: A systematic review and framework synthesis to assess effectiveness.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Managing costly new drugs to support equitable access: international collaboration and patient engagement to assess value, and managed entry agreements.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of patient participation in health technology assessment systems worldwide: trends and practices.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Sustaining Meaningful Patient Engagement Across the Lifecycle of Medicines: A Roadmap for Action.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Article
- Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPublic health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries' approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries' approaches.
methodsTo describe two countries' deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country's rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes.
resultsIn both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries' new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds.
conclusionsTo face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium's and New Zealand's public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system's priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.
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.