Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T09:55:40.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A COMPARISON OF PHARMACEUTICAL REIMBURSEMENT AGENCIES' PROCESSES AND METHODS IN FRANCE AND SCOTLAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2012

Matthew Bending ,
John Hutton  and
Clare McGrath
Matthew Bending
Affiliation:
University of York email: matthew.bending@york.ac.uk
John Hutton
Affiliation:
University of York
Clare McGrath
Affiliation:
Pfizer Inc.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Pharmaceutical reimbursement agencies’ processes and methods of appraisal vary across countries. The objective of this study was to examine the contribution of formal health economic analysis in a process using such analysis in Scotland in comparison to a process not routinely using such analysis in France.

Methods: A framework for classifying reimbursement systems was used to analyze the two systems. A typology of recommendation was defined and a qualitative analysis of decisions on a sample of medicines appraised by both reimbursement agencies was conducted. Reasons for differences in recommendations were analyzed and case studies selected to illustrate the common reasons.

Results: Thirty-nine common medicines appraised by both agencies were identified between 2005 and 2010, treating a variety of diseases for which the Scottish Medicines Consortium tended to provide more restrictive, or did not recommend, listing. Similarities in clinical evidence submitted to the respective reimbursement committees were observed. Differences in recommendation can be explained by a combination of the manufacturer's freedom to set price and the incentives provided by the consideration of health economic analysis and quality of life, alongside differences in relevant comparators, relevant outcomes, treatment guidelines, and the propensity to use network meta-analysis, in decision making.

Conclusions: This study provides some explanations and hypotheses for the differences observed in recommendations for a selected sample of medicines with regards to differences in appraisal processes and methods adopted. Further research using larger datasets may allow stakeholders to assess the impact of such differences on the efficient use of health resources.

Keywords

ReimbursementMedicinesEconomic evaluationScottish Medicines ConsortiumHaute Autorité de santéJEL I18government policyregulationpublic health
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 187 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Barbieri, M, Hawkins, N, Sculpher, M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems’ decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. 2009;12:193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Cairns, J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy. 2006;76:134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Carroll, S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: Its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York: Centre for Health Economcis, University of York; 2011.Google Scholar
4.Clement, FM, Harris, A, Li, JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: A consultation. London: Department of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
6.Department of Health. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. London: Crown; 2008.Google Scholar
7.HAS. Haute Autorité de santé. (HAS) 2011 [12/04/2011]. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_5267/actes-medicaments-dispositifs-medicaux?cid=c_5267.Google Scholar
8.HAS. L’évaluation économique à la HAS Principes et méthodes 2010 [12/04/2011]. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_1003762/levaluation-economique-a-la-has-principes-et-methodes.Google Scholar
9.Hutton, J, McGrath, C, Frybourg, J-M, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lexchin, J, Mintzes, B. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Managed Care. 2008;14:581–588.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Ministry of Health. Framework Agreement on 25 September 2008 between the Comité Economique des Produits de Santé and the Pharmaceutical companies (as amended by the riders of 26 October 2009 and 7 October 2010). 2010 [01/06/2011].Google Scholar
12.NICE. Guide to methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.Google Scholar
13.NICE. Response to the Department of Health consultation: Value based pricing. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.Google Scholar
14.Nielsen, C, Funch, T, Kristensen, F. Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Services Res Policy. 2011;16 (Suppl 2):6–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.OECD. Pharmaceutical pricing policies in a global market. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2008.Google Scholar
16.Office of Fair Trading. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: An OFT market study. London: OFT; 2007.Google Scholar
17.Office of Health Economics. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: A consultation. London: Office for Health Economics; 2011.Google Scholar
18.Raftery, J. Review of NICE's recommendations,1999-2005. BMJ. 2006;332:1266–1268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Raftery, JP. Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: Regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Med J Aust. 2008;188:26–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.SMC. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form (NPAF) [Revised February 2011] 2011.Google Scholar
21.SMC. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). 2011 [12/04/2011]. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Home.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bending et al. supplementary material

Supplementary tables 1-6

Download Bending et al. supplementary material(File)
File 129.5 KB