IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v8y2017ip69-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Panos Kanavos
  • Olivier Wouters
  • John S. F. Wright
  • Anthony J. G. Barron
  • Sara M. B. Shah
  • Corinna Klingler

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & John S. F. Wright & Anthony J. G. Barron & Sara M. B. Shah & Corinna Klingler, 2017. "Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 69-75, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:69-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1758-5899.12215
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    2. Michael Dickson & Jeremy Hurst & Stephane Jacobzone, 2003. "Survey of Pharmacoeconomic Assessment Activity in Eleven Countries," OECD Health Working Papers 4, OECD Publishing.
    3. J. Jaime Caro & Erik Nord & Uwe Siebert & Alistair McGuire & Maurice McGregor & David Henry & Gérard de Pouvourville & Vincenzo Atella & Peter Kolominsky‐Rabas, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health‐care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1117-1127, October.
    4. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    5. Sorenson, Corinna & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2012. "Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 25-45, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i:s2:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    3. Wasem, Jürgen & Niebuhr, Dea & Greß, Stefan, 2005. "Marktzugang und Preisbildung auf Arzneimittelmärkten im internationalen Vergleich," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 142, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Business and Economic Studie (IBES).
    4. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    5. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Werner B. F. Brouwer & Frans F. H. Rutten, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1128-1131, October.
    7. Grepstad, Mari & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 203-211.
    8. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    9. Katharina Elisabeth Blankart & Tom Stargardt, 2020. "The impact of drug quality ratings from health technology assessments on the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 63-82, October.
    10. Charalabos‐Markos Dintsios & Andreas Gerber, 2010. "Some essential clarifications: IQWiG comments on two critiques of the efficiency frontier approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1139-1141, October.
    11. Christine de Mazières & Valérie Paris, 2004. "La régulation de l’industrie pharmaceutique," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 76(3), pages 241-265.
    12. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Tracy Merlin, 2013. "Improving the Accuracy and Comparability of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies for Reimbursement Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 325-332, April.
    13. Verniers, Isabel & Stremersch, Stefan & Croux, Christophe, 2011. "The global entry of new pharmaceuticals: A joint investigation of launch window and price," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 295-308.
    14. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    15. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    16. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    17. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    18. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    19. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    20. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2010. "Sins of omission and obfuscation: IQWIG's guidelines on economic evaluation methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1132-1136, October.
    21. Erik Nord, 2011. "Discounting future health benefits: the poverty of consistency arguments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 16-26, January.
    22. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:69-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.