ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
France versus Germany: differences and similarities in determining the added therapeutic value of medicines.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough Germany and France implement ordinal scaling when assessing medicines and follow a relative effectiveness approach, there are procedural and methodological differences.
methodsAll G-BA and HAS decisions from 2011 to March 2023 were compared after assigning corresponding subgroups to harmonized added benefit categories. Descriptive statistics and dichotomous and ordinal agreement analyses by (weighted) Cohen’s Kappa were performed for procedures and subgroups. Logistic regression was calculated to identify explanatory variables for (dis-)agreement.
results475 G-BA and 465 HAS identified decisions led to 907 considered subgroup-pairs. G-BA granted an added benefit in 59% of procedures (39% subgroups) and HAS in 43% (48% subgroups). Mean time difference of decisions depending on therapeutic area varied strongly between both countries (-337–318 days). In 37% of subgroups comparators were identical. Overall (p < 0.001) and for some therapeutic areas, statistically significant differences in added benefit between G-BA and HAS revealed. Dichotomous agreement was slight for procedures (subgroups slight) and increased after excluding orphan drugs to moderate (subgroups fair). Subgroups had a fair ordinal agreement (unweighted kappa 0.370, 0.317–0.423) that increased after weighting to moderate (linear: 0.438, 0.387–0.490; quadratic: 0.507, 0.417–0.597). Some subgroups reached substantial agreement. In the regression models orphan designation showed a strong impact for Germany and PFS for France.
conclusionThough the HTA systems of both countries appear similar, differences emerged regarding added therapeutic value of medicines. This is reflected in the agreement results. Differences in methods and processes led even to different evaluations of the same evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41981229What 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.