IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v119y2015i2p180-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governance of conditional reimbursement practices in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Boon, Wouter
  • Martins, Luis
  • Koopmanschap, Marc

Abstract

When entering the market, orphan drugs are associated with substantial prices and a high degree of uncertainty regarding safety and effectiveness. This makes decision making about the reimbursement of these drugs a complex exercise. To advance on this, the Dutch government introduced a conditional reimbursement trajectory that requires a re-evaluation after four years. This article focuses on the origins, governance and outcomes of such a conditional reimbursement trajectory for orphan drugs. We find that the conditional reimbursement scheme is the result of years of discussion and returning public pressure about unequal access to expensive drugs. During the implementation of the scheme the actors involved went through a learning process about the regulation. Our analysis shows that previous collaborations or already existing organisational structures led to faster production of the required data on cost-effectiveness. However, cost-effectiveness evidence resulting from additional research seems to weigh less than political, judicial and ethical considerations in decision making on reimbursement of orphan drugs in the Netherlands.

Suggested Citation

  • Boon, Wouter & Martins, Luis & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "Governance of conditional reimbursement practices in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 180-185.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:2:p:180-185
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851014002772
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Gre[ss], Stefan & Niebuhr, Dea & Rothgang, Heinz & Wasem, Jurgen, 2005. "Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care: A comparative perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 78-91, July.
    2. Niezen, Maartje & de Bont, Antoinette & Stolk, Elly & Eyck, Arthur & Niessen, Louis & Stoevelaar, Herman, 2007. "Conditional reimbursement within the Dutch drug policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 39-50, November.
    3. Sandmann, Frank G. & Franken, Margreet G. & Steenhoek, Adri & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2013. "Do reassessments reduce the uncertainty of decision making? Reviewing reimbursement reports and economic evaluations of three expensive drugs over time," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 285-296.
    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. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.
    2. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    3. Merel L. Kimman & Marlies S. Wijsenbeek & Sander M. J. van Kuijk & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & Marjolein Storm & Xana Jaarsveld & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2019. "Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 149-162, February.
    4. Merel L. Kimman & Adrienne H. Rotteveel & Marlies Wijsenbeek & Rémy Mostard & Nelleke C. Tak & Xana van Jaarsveld & Marjolein Storm & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Marielle Gelens & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & J, 2017. "Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 629-642, October.
    5. Löblová, Olga & Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Kaló, Zoltán & King, Lawrence & McKee, Martin, 2019. "Alternative access schemes for pharmaceuticals in Europe: Towards an emerging typology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 630-634.
    6. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Aarden, Erik & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2015. "Path creation by public agencies — The case of desirable futures of genomics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 67-76.
    7. Veronika Kalouguina & Joël Wagner, 2020. "Challenges and Solutions for Integrating and Financing Personalized Medicine in Healthcare Systems: A Systematic Literature Review," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Wasem, Jürgen & Weegen, Lennart & Bauer, Cosima & Walendzik, Anke & Grande, Frederic & May, Uwe, 2015. "Regulatorische Handhabung der selektiven Erstattung von Arzneimitteln in den ausgewählten Ländern England, Niederlande, Frankreich und Schweden," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 211, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Business and Economic Studie (IBES).
    3. Aarden, Erik & Van Hoyweghen, Ine & Horstman, Klasien, 2011. "Constructing access in predictive medicine. Comparing classification for hereditary breast cancer risks in England, Germany and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 553-559, February.
    4. Stefan Greß & Jürgen Wasem & Dea Niebuhr, 2006. "Pricing and Reimbursement of Prescription Drugs in German Social Health Insurance," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(2), pages 39-47, 07.
    5. Barnett, Pauline & Tenbensel, Tim & Cumming, Jacqueline & Clayden, Clare & Ashton, Toni & Pledger, Megan & Burnette, Mili, 2009. "Implementing new modes of governance in the New Zealand health system: An empirical study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 118-127, December.
    6. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Wun-Yu You & Tzu-Pei Yeh & Kwo-Chen Lee & Wei-Fen Ma, 2020. "A Preliminary Study of the Comfort in Patients with Leukemia Staying in a Positive Pressure Isolation Room," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, May.
    8. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    9. Melanie Levy, 2022. "The rise of the Swiss regulatory healthcare state: On preserving the just in the quest for the better (or less expensive?)," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 427-447, April.
    10. Andrew McNee, 2012. "Rethinking Health Sector Wide Approaches through the lens of Aid Effectiveness," Development Policy Centre Discussion Papers 1214, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    11. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.

    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:119:y:2015:i:2:p:180-185. 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.