Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36612665›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations-Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs.

Marcelien H E Callenbach, Rick A Vreman, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Wim G Goettsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Marcelien H E CallenbachDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rick A VremanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2076-322X
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-0698
Wim G GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the current experiences with and future preferences for payment and reimbursement models for high-priced hospital therapies in the Netherlands, where the main barriers lie and assess how policy structures facilitate these models. A questionnaire was sent out to Dutch stakeholders (in)directly involved in payment and reimbursement agreements. The survey contained statements assessed with Likert scales, rankings and open questions. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-nine stakeholders (out of 100) (in)directly involved with reimbursement decision-making completed the survey. Our inquiry showed that currently financial-based reimbursement models are applied most, especially discounts were perceived best due to their simplicity. For the future, outcome-based reimbursement models were preferred, particularly pay-for-outcome models. The main stated challenge for implementation was generating evidence in practice. According to the respondents, upfront payments are currently implemented most often, whereas delayed payment models are preferred to be applied more frequently in the future. Particularly payment-at-outcome-achieved models are preferred; however, they were stated as administratively challenging to arrange. The respondents were moderately satisfied with the payment and reimbursement system in the Netherlands, arguing that the transparency of the final agreements and mutual trust could be improved. These insights can provide stakeholders with future direction when negotiating and implementing innovative reimbursement and payment models. Attention should be paid to the main barriers that are currently perceived as hindering a more frequent implementation of the preferred models and how national policy structures can facilitate a successful implementation.

Indexed as

MotivationNetherlandsSurveys and Questionnairesdelayed payment modelshealth technology assessmentmanaged entry agreementsoutcome-based reimbursementpharmaceutical reimbursementstakeholder perspectives

Identifiers

PMID36612665
PMCPMC9819658

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.