ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2024
A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the MYO ArmbandJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Factors influencing the reimbursement decisions of cancer drugs in Spanish National Health System.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Influence of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness on reimbursement decisions for lung cancer drugs in Spain.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Cost-utility analysis of home treatment versus inpatient treatment in child and adolescent psychiatry: a decision analysis.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Cost Utility of Intensive Home Treatment Compared With Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Admission.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- A Framework for Using Cost-effectiveness Analysis to Support Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions for New Pharmaceuticals in a Context of Evolving Treatments, Prices, and Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Drivers of innovation value: simulation for new drug pricing evaluation based on system dynamics modelling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
38214848What 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.