IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3582-d522722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The EU Health Technology Assessment and the Open Method of Coordination: A Relation with Potential in the Context of Network Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Ani Matei

    (Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Adrian-Stelian Dumitru

    (Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Corina-Georgiana Antonovici

    (Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The open method of coordination (OMC)—a tool which was formalized in the early 2000s—has generated the interest of both the researchers and practitioners in the context of the new EU governance. This article is examining the literature of both network governance and OMC, with the focus particularly on one main question: is OMC a useful instrument in health policies in order to achieve concrete results by outlining norms and legislation where EU exercise limited power? Analyzing a field in which the EU competence is limited—given the budgetary implications of medicines reimbursement—from the results of the existing collaboration within EUnetHTA, we will observe the added value in this particular case of the OMC application, and the possible consequences in shaping the supranational competences. Given that the EU, with some exceptions provided by the Treaties, may only exercise actions to support, coordinate or complement the action of the Member States in the health policy, the OMC proves to be a useful tool, both from the perspective of the Member States but especially of the supranational level.

Suggested Citation

  • Ani Matei & Adrian-Stelian Dumitru & Corina-Georgiana Antonovici, 2021. "The EU Health Technology Assessment and the Open Method of Coordination: A Relation with Potential in the Context of Network Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3582-:d:522722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3582/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3582/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Radaelli, Claudio M., 2004. "Europeanisation: Solution or problem?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 8, October.
    2. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    3. Wolfram Lamping & Monika Steffen, 2009. "European Union and Health Policy: The “Chaordic” Dynamics of Integration," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1361-1379, December.
    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. Amashukeli Mariam & Lezhava Diana & Chitashvili Marine, 2020. "“Conditioned” Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Georgia: Talking the EU Talk," Baltic Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 75-95, September.
    2. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Rune Dahl Fitjar & Einar Leknes & Janne Thygesen, 2013. "Europeanisation of Regional Policy Making: A Boolean Analysis of Norwegian Counties' Participation in the Eu's Interreg Programme," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 381-400, June.
    4. Anu Toots & Leif Kalev, 2016. "Governing in the shadow of Bologna: return of the state in higher education quality assurance policy," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(1/2), pages 54-70.
    5. Velasco Garrido, Marcial & Gerhardus, Ansgar & Røttingen, John-Arne & Busse, Reinhard, 2010. "Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 196-202, March.
    6. Marella Bodur Ün & Harun Arıkan, 2022. "Europeanization and De‐Europeanization of Turkey's Gender Equality Policy: The Case of the Istanbul Convention," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 945-962, July.
    7. Cornelia Woll & Sophie Jacquot, 2010. "Using Europe: Strategic Action in Multi-Level Politics," Post-Print hal-01023857, HAL.
    8. Kristine Kern & Harriet Bulkeley, 2009. "Cities, Europeanization and Multi‐level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 309-332, March.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m1ga289 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    11. A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.
    12. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    13. Miloš Večeřa, 2012. "The process of Europeanization of law in the context of Czech law," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 459-464.
    14. 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.
    15. Borut Mikulec & Klara Skubic Ermenc, 2016. "Qualifications Frameworks Between Global and European Pressures and Local Responses," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(2), pages 21582440166, May.
    16. Francesca Iandolo & Pietro Vito & Irene Fulco & Francesca Loia, 2018. "From Health Technology Assessment to Health Technology Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Hartz, Susanne & John, Jürgen, 2009. "Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 184-192, February.
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m1ga289 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m1ga289 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    21. Cornelia Woll & Sophie Jacquot, 2010. "Using Europe: Strategic Action in Multi-Level Politics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01023857, HAL.
    22. Georgios Maris & Floros Flouros, 2021. "The Green Deal, National Energy and Climate Plans in Europe: Member States’ Compliance and Strategies," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    23. Milena Vainieri & Francesca Ferrè & Stefania Manetti, 2021. "An Integrated Framework to Measure the Performance of Inter-Organizational Programme on Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, March.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3582-:d:522722. 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.