IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v101y2011i3p290-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Katharina E.
  • Leidl, Reiner
  • Rogowski, Wolf H.

Abstract

Objectives The comparison of fourth hurdle processes is challenging because they are heterogeneous and decision practice may deviate from formal process rules. This study applies a published framework consisting of key steps of coverage decision processes to the area of cancer prevention.Methods A research design was developed for analysis of case studies on past decision processes. Decisions were identified and information on the process steps was elicited by semi-structured telephone interviews with decision-makers and experts. The scheme was validated with experts from the areas of screening and prevention and fourth hurdle decision making.Results Indicators for a structured empirical comparison of coverage decisions were derived. Corresponding ordinal rankings were proposed. Details on six decisions about cancer screening (colorectal and prostate cancer) and vaccination against human papillomavirus in Sweden, Austria and Lithuania are presented.Conclusions The development of the structured scheme for analysis of coverage decisions allows validation of official statements on decision processes and collection of larger data sets for empirical analysis. However, the semi-structured phone interviews were time-consuming for collecting information on a larger number of decisions. Further validation of the structured scheme and development of a research tool for large-scale empirical studies is still needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Katharina E. & Leidl, Reiner & Rogowski, Wolf H., 2011. "A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 290-299, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:290-299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851011000480
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Meckley, Lisa M. & Neumann, Peter J., 2010. "Personalized medicine: Factors influencing reimbursement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 91-100, February.
    2. Anders Anell, 2004. "Priority setting for pharmaceuticals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 28-35, February.
    3. Geertruida Bekkering & Jos Kleijnen, 2008. "Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, November.
    4. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    5. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    6. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Haas, Marion & Ashton, Toni & Blum, Kerstin & Christiansen, Terkel & Conis, Elena & Crivelli, Luca & Lim, Meng Kin & Lisac, Melanie & MacAdam, Margaret & Schlette, Sophia, 2009. "Drugs, sex, money and power: An HPV vaccine case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(2-3), pages 288-295, October.
    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. Katharina Elisabeth Fischer & Wolf Henning Rogowski, 2014. "Funding Decisions for Newborn Screening: A Comparative Review of 22 Decision Processes in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    4. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    5. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.

    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. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    2. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
    3. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    4. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    7. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    8. Phill O’Neill & Nancy Devlin, 2010. "An Analysis of NICE’s ‘Restricted’ (or ‘Optimized’) Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 987-993, November.
    9. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    10. Margreet Franken & Fredrik Nilsson & Frank Sandmann & Anthonius Boer & Marc Koopmanschap, 2013. "Unravelling Drug Reimbursement Outcomes: A Comparative Study of the Role of Pharmacoeconomic Evidence in Dutch and Swedish Reimbursement Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(9), pages 781-797, September.
    11. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    12. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    13. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    14. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    15. Leopold, C. & Vogler, S. & Habl, C. & Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K. & Espin, J., 2013. "Personalised medicine as a challenge for public pricing and reimbursement authorities – A survey among 27 European countries on the example of trastuzumab," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 313-322.
    16. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    17. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    18. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    19. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    20. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.

    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:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:290-299. 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.