Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 107, Issues 2–3, October 2012, Pages 218-230
Health Policy

Review
A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.07.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

Quantitative analysis of real-world coverage decision-making offers insights into the revealed preferences of appraisal committees. Aim of this review was to structure empirical evidence of coverage decisions made in practice based on the components ‘methods and evidence’, ‘criteria and standards’, ‘decision outcome’ and ‘processes’.

Methods

Several electronic databases, key journals and decision committees’ websites were searched for publications between 1993 and June 2011. Inclusion criteria were the analysis of past decisions and application of quantitative methods. Each study was categorized by the scope of decision-making and the components covered by the variables used in quantitative analysis.

Results

Thirty-two studies were identified. Many focused on pharmaceuticals, the UK NICE or the Australian PBAC. The components were covered comprehensively, but heterogeneously. Seventy-two variables were identified of which the following were more prevalent: specifications of the decision outcome; the indications considered for appraisal, identification of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, appropriateness of evaluation methods, type of economic or clinical evidence used for assessment, and the decision date.

Conclusions

Research was dominated by analysis of decision outcomes and appraisal criteria. Although common approaches were identified, the complexity of coverage decision-making – reflected by the heterogeneity of identified variables – will continue to challenge empirical research.

Introduction

Coverage decision-making that determines the inclusion in or exclusion from a basket of health services is perceived as a promising instrument to regulate the allocation of health services in publicly funded healthcare systems [1], [2], [3]. So-called fourth hurdle decisions are highly complex and made heterogeneously across countries as they depend on healthcare system needs and the value judgements of decision-makers. Facing an increase in formal requirements, stakeholders are interested in the determinants of coverage decisions [4]. Manufacturers strive for knowledge to achieve fast market entry. Patients seek access to promising health technologies. Third-party payers are interested in cost containment, whereas governments may be driven by political opportunism.

Existing evidence reviews have dealt with description of decision processes and the role of health economic evaluation. Stafinski et al. provide a collection of decision processes based on official documentation [5]. They elicit similarities and differences between components of processes in industrialized countries and identify common criteria, namely clinical need, health impact and affordability. Erntoft examines the use of health economic evaluation in priority setting and coverage decision-making [6]. She identifies criteria at all levels of healthcare systems and elicits institutional–political, cultural and methodological barriers.

Analysis of actual decisions is promising as these reflect the revealed preferences of third-party payers which may deviate from pre-defined processes. New technologies challenge existing appraisal procedures, or decisions are influenced by political commitment. Examination of real-world decision-making allows the making of inferences from true instead of hypothetical decisions. Vuorenkoski et al. conducted a review of studies that analyze real-world coverage decision-making. Six publications were identified that each examines one decision maker [7]. The study concludes that according to the available evidence, decision-makers define explicit criteria, but economic considerations play a minor role. Applied research methods are based on qualitative approaches. Yet, the review does not structure the aspects of decision-making that have been considered in the studies. As coverage may be analyzed from a multitude of perspectives and documentation of single decisions is rapidly growing, structured methods are needed for empirical research that capture components of coverage decision-making and information about past decisions.

As more decision-making bodies have been enforced, it can be assumed that a critical mass of studies is available beyond Vuorenkoski's review that analyze the work of decision-makers. Furthermore, the number of coverage decisions completed is sufficiently large for selected institutions to apply quantitative methods for analysis. A review of quantitative studies provides the opportunity to structure approaches of empirical research. Accounting for the current evidence, the objective of this study is to review research methods on coverage decision-making based on quantitative analysis of real-world decisions.

Section snippets

Components of coverage decision-making

To structure the variables used in empirical research of coverage decision-making, decision processes were segmented by their components. The objective was to assign each variable used for analysis to one component uniquely and identify common approaches of empirical research. The components ‘methods and evidence’, ‘criteria and standards’, ‘decision outcome’ and ‘processes’ were defined based on two frameworks that suggest structuring of processes and ground on real-world decisions and expert

Results

In total, 32 studies were included of which thirteen references were identified outside the systematic search. Fig. 1 provides a flowchart of the study selection. Articles that have been reviewed in full text but excluded were categorized by the reasons for exclusion. Most studies did not analyze real-world decision-making (41 studies), case studies were reported narratively (12), a qualitative approach was used (11) or research methods were not described (11). The two publications by Anis et

Discussion

The review of studies on coverage decision-making demonstrated a great heterogeneity of how empirical research has addressed this topic. Thus, no general approach of analysis could be identified. Regarding the scope of the studies, research focused on the factors that influence decision outcomes and appraisal criteria and concentrated on coverage of pharmaceuticals and decision-makers with longer traditions in the use of cost considerations. Accordingly, future research could address other

Conclusion

Coverage decision-making is a policy tool which is increasingly considered to regulate technology diffusion. This literature review synthesizes approaches of quantitative research based on real-world decisions by four components. Seventy-two variables that have been used for analysis were identified which indicates that coverage decision-making is addressed very heterogeneously by empirical research. Only a few variables were identified that were used by several studies. As sound evidence is

Funding

This research was carried out on behalf of Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health (HMGU). The HMGU is an independent organization funded by the German and Bavarian governments.

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Reiner Leidl for comments on earlier drafts of this article and for support in the identification and selection of articles for this literature review. Also, I am deeply grateful to Wolf Rogowski for comments on the study design and Rudolf Blankart, Florian Koerber and Jürgen John who provided valuable comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments to this manuscript.

References (72)

  • J. Hjelmgren et al.

    Health economic guidelines – similarities. Differences and some implications

    Value in Health

    (2001)
  • J. Abelson et al.

    Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice

    Health Policy

    (2007)
  • M. Velasco-Garrido et al.

    Health systems health policy and health technology assessment

  • N. Sood et al.

    The effect of regulation on pharmaceutical revenues: experience in nineteen countries

    Health Affairs

    (2009)
  • R.S. Taylor et al.

    Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle

    British Medical Journal

    (2004)
  • C. Sorenson

    Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison

    Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund)

    (2010)
  • T. Stafinski et al.

    Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2011)
  • J. Hutton et al.

    Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems)

    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

    (2006)
  • W.H. Rogowski et al.

    Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine

    BMC Health Services Research

    (2008)
  • E.A. Stolk et al.

    Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in the Netherlands

    Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

    (2009)
  • A. Anell

    Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees

    European Journal of Health Economics

    (2004)
  • M. Giacomini

    How good is good enough? Standards in policy decisions to cover new health technologies

    Healthcare Policy

    (2007)
  • C. McCabe et al.

    The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2008)
  • J. Schreyögg et al.

    Defining the ‘Health Benefit Basket’ in nine European countries. Evidence from the European Union Health BASKET Project

    European Journal of Health Economics

    (2005)
  • J. Raftery

    Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999–2005

    British Medical Journal

    (2006)
  • M. Klemp et al.

    What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?

    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

    (2011)
  • S.G. Morgan et al.

    Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

    Health Affairs

    (2006)
  • D. Menon et al.

    Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions

    Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

    (2011)
  • Centre for Reviews Dissemination

    CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care

    (2009)
  • T. Stargardt et al.

    Impact of cross-reference pricing on pharmaceutical prices: manufacturers’ pricing strategies and price regulation

    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

    (2006)
  • A.H. Anis et al.

    Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions: so much for guidelines

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2000)
  • A.H. Anis et al.

    Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (1998)
  • N.J. Devlin et al.

    Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis

    Health Economics

    (2004)
  • Jena A, Philipson T. Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis in health care technology adoption. National Bureau of...
  • J.P. Cohen et al.

    The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2007)
  • B. George et al.

    Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996)

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2001)
  • Cited by (46)

    • The ecosystem of health decision making: from fragmentation to synergy

      2022, The Lancet Public Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      Another example comes from the alignment of HTAs and guideline development in Brazil, a middle-income country where the Ministry of Health now promotes synergy between HTAs and guideline production after a period of independent development within the same ministry.58 Processes and criteria used for coverage decisions vary across and within countries.59 Processes and criteria are often the result of an HTA or a guideline process by considering similar factors and, thus, have become more systematic.

    • GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for coverage decisions

      2020, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
    • What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

      2019, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      For the purpose of this work, drug reimbursement does not refer to the reimbursement of patients for costs incurred when purchasing drugs, but rather to the decision-making process in a country’s health care system that determines which drugs will be made routinely available to patients from public funds. In the last stage of the process, countries make different decisions regarding which treatments to provide (for a review of these processes see [1]). These decisions, which usually combine clinical and economic evidence with value judgements, are extremely important, not only to patients but also to manufacturers and health care professionals.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text