Cited by 62Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Systems and Reforms

Decision-making in priority setting for medicines—A review of empirical studies

Vuorenkoski, Lauri, Toiviainen, Hanna, Hemminki, Elina·2008·Health Policy

Abstract

Rising pharmaceutical expenditure leads to an increased need for priority setting in medicinal care. The objective of this paper is to review studies that empirically analyse a macro- and meso-level decision-making process for including drugs in and/or excluding drugs from reimbursement lists and drug formularies in industrialized countries. We identified six separate studies analysing a decision-making process as a whole. According to them, the most important groups in decision-making were experts and administrative persons. The decision-makers had an explicitly or implicitly defined set of criteria that were considered in decision-making, with clinical evidence on the benefit and the costs being the main criteria used. However, formal pharmacoeconomic analyses were given a rather small role. The criteria used varied between studies, and also between decisions. The decisions seemed inevitably to be partly value-based in their nature, as the scientific or other exact evidence did not give a firm foundation on which the decisions could be solely based. The majority of the studies concentrated on descriptive analysis on how things are rather than on explicitly analysing how decision-making processes perform against defined principles or goals. To facilitate decision-making by clearly defined principles and methods, more analytic studies on decision-making are especially needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.09.007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vuorenkoski, L., Toiviainen, H., & Hemminki, E.
Corresponding author
Vuorenkoski, Lauri
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966967738
Cited by
62
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
Keywords
priority setting, drug reimbursement, drug formulary, pharmaceutical expenditure, decision-making, expert groups, clinical evidence, value-based decision making, pharmacoeconomic evaluation, health technology assessment
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Formularies as Topic, Health Priorities, Empirical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review