IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i8p1009-1025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina E. Fischer
  • Björn Stollenwerk
  • Wolf H. Rogowski

Abstract

Background. To achieve fair-coverage decision making, both material criteria and criteria of procedural justice have been proposed. The relationship between these is still unclear. Objective. To analyze hypotheses underlying the assumption that more assessment, transparency, and participation have a positive impact on the reasonableness of coverage decisions. Methods. We developed a structural equation model in which the process components were considered latent constructs and operationalized by a set of observable indicators. The dependent variable “reasonableness†was defined by the relevance of clinical, economic, and other ethical criteria in technology appraisal (as opposed to appraisal based on stakeholder lobbying). We conducted an Internet survey among conference participants familiar with coverage decisions of third-party payers in industrialized countries between 2006 and 2011. Partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) was used, which allows analyzing small sample sizes without distributional assumptions. Data on 97 coverage decisions from 15 countries and 40 experts were used for model estimation. Results. Stakeholder participation (regression coefficient [RC] =0.289; P = 0.005) and scientific rigor of assessment (RC = 0.485; P

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:8:p:1009-1025
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13490837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13490837
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13490837?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    3. Golan, Ofra & Hansen, Paul & Kaplan, Giora & Tal, Orna, 2011. "Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 126-135.
    4. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    5. Tenenhaus, Michel & Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito & Chatelin, Yves-Marie & Lauro, Carlo, 2005. "PLS path modeling," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 159-205, January.
    6. 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.
    7. WH Rogowski, 2013. "An Economic Theory Of The Fourth Hurdle," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 600-610, May.
    8. McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Mitton, Craig, 2006. "The Common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 339-351, August.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    6. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    7. Chris Skedgel & Dominika Wranik & Min Hu, 2018. "The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian On," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 467-475, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Bayoumi, Ahmed M., 2014. "Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 255-263.
    10. 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.
    11. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    12. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    13. Claudio Vitari & Elisabetta Raguseo, 2016. "Big data value and financial performance: an empirical investigation [Digital data, dynamic capability and financial performance: an empirical investigation in the era of Big Data]," Post-Print halshs-01923271, HAL.
    14. Martins, José & Costa, Catarina & Oliveira, Tiago & Gonçalves, Ramiro & Branco, Frederico, 2019. "How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 378-387.
    15. Gupta, Prashant & Seetharaman, A. & Raj, John Rudolph, 2013. "The usage and adoption of cloud computing by small and medium businesses," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 861-874.
    16. Asif Khan & Chih-Cheng Chen & Kwanrat Suanpong & Athapol Ruangkanjanases & Santhaya Kittikowit & Shih-Chih Chen, 2021. "The Impact of CSR on Sustainable Innovation Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Second-Order Social Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, November.
    17. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    18. Bronzo, Marcelo & de Resende, Paulo Tarso Vilela & de Oliveira, Marcos Paulo Valadares & McCormack, Kevin P. & de Sousa, Paulo Renato & Ferreira, Reinaldo Lopes, 2013. "Improving performance aligning business analytics with process orientation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 300-307.
    19. R.M. Thirupathi & S. Vinodh, 2016. "Application of interpretive structural modelling and structural equation modelling for analysis of sustainable manufacturing factors in Indian automotive component sector," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(22), pages 6661-6682, November.
    20. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:8:p:1009-1025. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.