IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v123y2019i2p140-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries

Author

Listed:
  • Nicod, Elena
  • Annemans, Lieven
  • Bucsics, Anna
  • Lee, Anne
  • Upadhyaya, Sheela
  • Facey, Karen

Abstract

Challenges commonly encountered in HTA of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) were identified in Advance-HTA. Since then, new initiatives have been developed to specifically address issues related to HTA of OMPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicod, Elena & Annemans, Lieven & Bucsics, Anna & Lee, Anne & Upadhyaya, Sheela & Facey, Karen, 2019. "HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 140-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:123:y:2019:i:2:p:140-151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017300842
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.009?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. Angelis, Aris & Tordrup, David & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: A systematic review of cost of illness evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(7), pages 964-979.
    2. Alain Denis & Lut Mergaert & Christel Fostier & Irina Cleemput & Steven Simoens, 2010. "Issues surrounding orphan disease and orphan drug policies in Europe," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(5), pages 343-350, September.
    3. Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Jacob Willet & Donna Rindress & Mireille Goetghebeur, 2016. "Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301, March.
    4. Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Stefanowska, Patricia & Hurley, Jeremiah, 2011. "A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 405-433, July.
    5. Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos, 2016. "Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 435-446, May.
    6. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2016. "Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 35-45.
    7. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    8. Denis, Alain & Mergaert, Lut & Fostier, Christel & Cleemput, Irina & Simoens, Steven, 2010. "A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 173-179, October.
    9. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    10. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2016. "Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65148, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Mike Paulden & Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Christopher McCabe, 2015. "Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 255-269, March.
    12. Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Jacob Willet & Donna Rindress & Mireille Goetghebeur, 2016. "Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301, March.
    13. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    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. Elena Nicod & Andrew J Lloyd & Thomas Morel & Michela Meregaglia & Sheela Upadhyaya & Amanda Whittal & Karen Facey & Michael Drummond, 2023. "Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 7-17, January.

    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. Belousova, Olga A. & Groen, Aard J. & Ouendag, Aniek M., 2020. "Opportunities and barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship in orphan drug development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    3. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    6. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    7. Marialuisa Saviano & Sergio Barile & Francesco Caputo & Mattia Lettieri & Stefania Zanda, 2019. "From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    10. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Cleemput, Irina & Devriese, Stephan & Kohn, Laurence & Westhovens, René, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(8), pages 878-884.
    13. López-Bastida, J. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Aranda-Reneo, I. & Trapero-Bertran, M. & Kanavos, P. & Rodriguez Martin, B., 2019. "Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 152-158.
    14. Maarten J. IJzerman & Hendrik Koffijberg & Elisabeth Fenwick & Murray Krahn, 2017. "Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 727-740, July.
    15. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    16. Pejcic, Ana V. & Iskrov, Georgi & Jakovljevic, Mihajlo Michael & Stefanov, Rumen, 2018. "Access to orphan drugs – comparison across Balkan countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 583-589.
    17. Todd Gammie & Christine Y Lu & Zaheer Ud-Din Babar, 2015. "Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    18. Tania Stafinski & Jacqueline Street & Andrea Young & Devidas Menon, 2022. "Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens’ Jury Exploring the Public’s Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Johanna Wiss & Lars-Ake Levin & David Andersson & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 567-576, July.
    20. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Panagiotoglou, Dimitra & Dragojlovic, Nick & Lynd, Larry, 2021. "Methodology for constructing scenarios for health policy research: The case of coverage decision-making for drugs for rare diseases in Canada," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    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:123:y:2019:i:2:p:140-151. 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.