Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368231›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2022

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options.

Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova, James Buchanan, Heleen Vellekoop, Simone Huygens, Matthijs Versteegh, Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, László Szilberhorn, Tamás Zelei, Balázs Nagy, Sarah Wordsworth and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Human cardiovascular organoids: Biomedical applications and ethical challenges.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Toward Sex-Specific Biomaterials Innovation: A Perspective.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors.

Rositsa Koleva-KolarovaHealth Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. rositsa.koleva-kolarova@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8924-4671
James BuchananHealth Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Heleen VellekoopInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Simone HuygensInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Matthijs VersteeghInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maureen Rutten-van MölkenInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
László SzilberhornSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás ZeleiSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Balázs NagySyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Sarah WordsworthHealth Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Apostolos TsiachristasHealth Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
HEcoPerMed Consortium

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 824997
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

objectiveTo review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

methodsA literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

resultsOne hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna

conclusionsPublic-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentPrecision MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID35368231
PMCPMC9206925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.