IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v11y2014i5p5403-5430d36212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Funding Decisions for Newborn Screening: A Comparative Review of 22 Decision Processes in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Elisabeth Fischer

    (Hamburg Center for Health Economics, Universität Hamburg, Esplanade 36, 20354 Hamburg, Germany
    Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany)

  • Wolf Henning Rogowski

    (Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
    Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinical Center, Ludwig Maximilians University, Ziemssenstr. 1, 80336 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

Decision-makers need to make choices to improve public health. Population-based newborn screening (NBS) is considered as one strategy to prevent adverse health outcomes and address rare disease patients’ needs. The aim of this study was to describe key characteristics of decisions for funding new NBS programmes in Europe. We analysed past decisions using a conceptual framework. It incorporates indicators that capture the steps of decision processes by health care payers. Based on an internet survey, we compared 22 decisions for which answers among two respondents were validated for each observation. The frequencies of indicators were calculated to elicit key characteristics. All decisions resulted in positive, mostly unrestricted funding. Stakeholder participation was diverse focusing on information provision or voting. Often, decisions were not fully transparent. Assessment of NBS technologies concentrated on expert opinion, literature review and rough cost estimates. Most important appraisal criteria were effectiveness ( i.e. , health gain from testing for the children being screened), disease severity and availability of treatments. Some common and diverging key characteristics were identified. Although no evidence of explicit healthcare rationing was found, processes may be improved in respect of transparency and scientific rigour of assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:5403-5430:d:36212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/5403/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/5403/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Norman, Richard & Haas, Marion & Wilcken, Bridget, 2009. "International perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry for rare metabolic conditions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 252-260, March.
    4. Wieser, Bernhard, 2010. "Public accountability of newborn screening: Collective knowing and deciding," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 926-933, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wolf Rogowski & Katherine Payne & Petra Schnell-Inderst & Andrea Manca & Ursula Rochau & Beate Jahn & Oguzhan Alagoz & Reiner Leidl & Uwe Siebert, 2015. "Concepts of ‘Personalization’ in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 49-59, January.
    3. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    4. 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.
    5. Kittiphong Thiboonboon & Pattara Leelahavarong & Duangrurdee Wattanasirichaigoon & Nithiwat Vatanavicharn & Pornswan Wasant & Vorasuk Shotelersuk & Suthipong Pangkanon & Chulaluck Kuptanon & Sumonta C, 2015. "An Economic Evaluation of Neonatal Screening for Inborn Errors of Metabolism Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry in Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Chris Schilling & Duncan Mortimer & Kim Dalziel, 2017. "Using CART to Identify Thresholds and Hierarchies in the Determinants of Funding Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 173-182, February.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:5403-5430:d:36212. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.