Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32690107›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2020

Are supplemental appraisal/reimbursement processes needed for rare disease treatments? An international comparison of country approaches.

Elena Nicod, Amanda Whittal, Michael Drummond, Karen Facey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. European union regulation of health technology assessment: what is required for it to succeed?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elena NicodResearch Centre on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136, Milan, Italy. elena@nicod.com.
Amanda WhittalResearch Centre on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136, Milan, Italy.
Michael DrummondCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Karen FaceyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, NINE Edinburgh BioQuarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing recognition that conventional appraisal approaches may be unsuitable for assessing the value rare disease treatments (RDTs). This research examines what supplemental appraisal/reimbursement processes for RDTs are used internationally and how they can be characterised. A qualitative research design was used that included (1) documentation of country appraisal/reimbursement processes for RDTs via questionnaires, desk research and iterative interactions with country experts to produce country vignettes, and (2) a cross-country analysis of these processes to identify and characterise features in supplemental processes for RDTs, and compare them to countries without supplemental processes.

resultsThirty-two of the 37 invited countries participated in this research. Forty-one percent (13/32) use supplemental processes for RDTs. Their level of integration within standard processes ranged from low to high, characterised by whether they are separate or partially separate from the standard process, adapted or accelerated standard processes, or standard processes that may be applied to RDTs. They are characterised by features implemented throughout the appraisal process. These features are mechanisms that allow application of different standards to assess the value of the medicine, support to the appraisal/decision-making process, overcome the issues of lack of cost-effectiveness, or exempt from part of/the full appraisal/reimbursement process. They increase the likelihood of reimbursement by adjusting and/or foregoing part of the assessment process, or accepting to pay more for the same added benefit as for common conditions. A large proportion of countries with standard processes include one or more of these features (formally or informally) or are discussing potential changes in their systems.

conclusionsResults suggest revealed preferences to treat RDTs differently than conventional medicines. Some of the challenges around uncertainty and high price remain, but supplemental process features can support decision-making that is more flexible and consistent. Many of these processes are new and countries continue to adjust as they gain experience.

Indexed as

Rare DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAccess to treatmentsAppraisalHealth technology assessmentOrphan medicineRare disease treatmentReimbursementSupplemental processesUltra-orphan medicine

Identifiers

PMID32690107
PMCPMC7370450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.