Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38214848›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2024

A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.

Néboa Zozaya, Javier Villaseca, Irene Fernández, Fernando Abdalla, Benito Cadenas-Noreña, Miguel Ángel Calleja, Pedro Gómez-Pajuelo, Jorge Mestre-Ferrándiz, Juan Oliva-Moreno, José Luis Trillo and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the MYO ArmbandJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025
    Trial
  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

11 authors.

Néboa ZozayaDepartment of Health Economics, Weber, C/Moreto 17, 5D, 28014, Madrid, Spain. neboa.zozaya@weber.org.es.ORCID 0000-0003-4618-6894
Javier VillasecaDepartment of Health Economics, Weber, C/Moreto 17, 5D, 28014, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4292-7683
Irene FernándezDepartment of Health Economics, Weber, C/Moreto 17, 5D, 28014, Madrid, Spain.
Fernando AbdallaDepartment of Health Economics, Weber, C/Moreto 17, 5D, 28014, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2276-6202
Benito Cadenas-NoreñaKing Juan Carlos University & Syracuse University, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel Ángel CallejaDepartment of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8449-5490
Pedro Gómez-PajueloMinistry of Health, Madrid, Spain.
Jorge Mestre-FerrándizIndependent Economics Consultant, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-1321
Juan Oliva-MorenoDepartment of Economic Analysis and Finance, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8997-0307
José Luis TrilloDepartment of Pharmacy, Health Area of the Malvarrosa Valencia Clinical Department, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5851-9038
Álvaro Hidalgo-VegaDepartment of Economic Analysis and Finance, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1031-2051

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information.

methodsScientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.

resultsEight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days.

conclusionsMost analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

Indexed as

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisFranceGermanyHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.