Decision-making in priority setting for medicines—A review of empirical studies
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A review from 2008 found healthcare providers and administrators to be most influential in reimbursement decisions for new medicines.
“A review from 2008 focusing on reimbursement decisions for new medicines also found healthcare providers and administrators (i.e. policymakers) to be most influential in reimbursement decisions [36]”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rotteveel, A. H., Lambooij, M. S., van de Rijt, J. J. A., van Exel, J., Moons, K. G. M., & de Wit, G. A. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06298-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vuorenkoski, L., Toiviainen, H., & Hemminki, E.
- Corresponding author
- Vuorenkoski, Lauri
- ORCID
- Hemminki, Elina
- 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