IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v18y2017i2d10.1007_s10198-016-0765-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Blome

    (University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf)

  • Matthias Augustin

    (University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf)

  • Hidayet Metin

    (Janssen-Cilag GmbH)

  • David Lohrberg

    (University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf)

Abstract

Background Since 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) of new drugs constricts free price setting in Germany. According to the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG), pharmaceutical companies are obliged to demonstrate added benefit of new drugs over comparative treatment. Benefit is usually evaluated by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The final appraisal is made by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany’s highest-ranking decision body in the health sector, triggering drug prize negotiations between companies and statutory health insurance funds. One of four evaluation criteria is quality of life (QoL). QoL outcomes have, however, only rarely been pivotal in EBAs. Objective This study determined methodological requirements for QoL measurement and data presentation in the EBA. Design In a qualitative content analysis, documents of all EBAs completed by 2014 were searched for the term QoL. Relevant passages of all EBAs of 2011–2013 were independently extracted and reduced to key content by two researchers. Recurring patterns were identified and verified through comparison with EBAs of 2014. Results We identified a range of requirements regarding QoL assessment, analysis, presentation, and interpretation, which go beyond official regulations. Disease-specific questionnaires are preferred and have to be validated according to certain standards and in the respective patient group. Effects must exceed the minimal important difference, which in turn must be validated in compliance with specific requirements. Often, instruments were not accepted as QoL measures, sometimes inconsistently across EBAs. Another frequent reason for non-acceptance of QoL data was that more than 30 % of randomized patients could not be analyzed due to missing data. Conclusions Non-compliance with methodological requirements for QoL evidence impairs chances for positive benefit evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Blome & Matthias Augustin & Hidayet Metin & David Lohrberg, 2017. "Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 181-193, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0765-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-016-0765-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-016-0765-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-016-0765-6?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. Jörg Ruof & Friedrich Schwartz & J.-Matthias Schulenburg & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2014. "Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(6), pages 577-589, July.
    2. Hörn, Helmut & Nink, Katrin & McGauran, Natalie & Wieseler, Beate, 2014. "Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – Results from 2011 to 2012," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 147-153.
    3. Henschke, Cornelia & Sundmacher, Leonie & Busse, Reinhard, 2013. "Structural changes in the German pharmaceutical market: Price setting mechanisms based on the early benefit evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 263-269.
    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 Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    2. Ruof, Jörg & Knoerzer, Dietrich & Dünne, Anja-Alexandra & Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos & Staab, Thomas & Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm, 2014. "Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 242-254.
    3. Stephan Eger & Jörg Mahlich, 2014. "Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Leopold, C. & Vogler, S. & Habl, C. & Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K. & Espin, J., 2013. "Personalised medicine as a challenge for public pricing and reimbursement authorities – A survey among 27 European countries on the example of trastuzumab," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 313-322.
    5. Olberg, Britta & Perleth, Matthias & Busse, Reinhard, 2014. "The new regulation to investigate potentially beneficial diagnostic and therapeutic methods in Germany: Up to international standard?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 135-145.
    6. Matthias Herpers & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2019. "Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 45-57, February.
    7. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    8. Niehaus, Ines & Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos, 2018. "Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 599-606.
    9. Omer Ben-Aharon & Oren Shavit & Racheli Magnezi, 2017. "Does drug price-regulation affect healthcare expenditures?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(7), pages 859-867, September.
    10. Katharina E. Fischer & Tom Stargardt, 2014. "Early Benefit Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Germany," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1030-1047, November.
    11. Franziska Worm & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2020. "Determinants of Orphan Drug Prices in Germany," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 397-411, April.
    12. Hostenkamp, Gisela & Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Borch-Johnsen, Knut, 2016. "Drug safety and the impact of drug warnings: An interrupted time series analysis of diabetes drug prescriptions in Germany and Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1404-1411.
    13. Ulrike Theidel & J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg, 2016. "Benefit assessment in Germany: implications for price discounts," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Chassagnol, F & Marcelli, G & Wagle, J & Giuliani, G & Traub, D & Schaub, V & Ruof, J, 2020. "Review of Relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals at the European network for health technology assessment (EUnetHTA): A first step towards a consolidated European perspective on ," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 943-951.
    15. C. Thoren & C. Balg & J. Gibbert & S. Mostardt & M. Ripoll & D. Schierbaum & S. Schiller & A. Schwalm, 2020. "Determination of the target population in early benefit assessments in Germany: challenges for non-small-cell lung cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 881-893, August.
    16. Hörn, Helmut & Nink, Katrin & McGauran, Natalie & Wieseler, Beate, 2014. "Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – Results from 2011 to 2012," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 147-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    AMNOG; Quality of life; Qualitative research; Health technology assessment; Early benefit assessment; Comparative effectiveness research;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0765-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.