CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Systems and Reforms

Conditional Financing of Drugs in the Netherlands: Past, Present, and Future—Results From Stakeholder Interviews

Open access
Makady, Amr, van Acker, Sandine, Nijmeijer, Hugo, de Boer, Anthonius, Hillege, Hans, Klungel, Olaf, Goettsch, Wim·2019·Value in Health
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Conditional financing (CF) of hospital drugs was implemented in the Netherlands as a form of managed entry agreements between 2006 and 2012. CF was a 4-year process comprising 3 stages: initial health technology assessment of the drug (T = 0), conduct of outcomes research studies, and reassessment of the drug (T = 4). Objectives To analyze stakeholder experiences in implementing CF in practice. Methods Public and private stakeholders were approached for participation in stakeholder interviews through standardized email invitations. An interview guide was developed to guide discussions that covered the following topics: perceived aims of CF, functioning of CF, impact of CF, and conclusions and future perspectives. Extensive summaries were generated for each interview and subsequently used for directed content analysis. Results Thirty stakeholders were interviewed. Differences emerged among the stakeholders on the perceived aims of CF. Conversely, there was some agreement among stakeholders on the shortcomings in the functioning of CF, the positive impact of CF on the Dutch healthcare setting, and improvement points for CF. Conclusions Despite stakeholders' belief that CF either did not meet its aims or only partially did so, there was agreement on the need for new policy to address the same aims of CF in the future. Nevertheless, stakeholders diverged on whether CF should be improved on the basis of learnings identified and reintroduced into practice or replaced with new policy schemes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.016

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Conditional reimbursement has been proposed as a policy-tool to delay the final reimbursement decision, decreasing the uncertainty on the (cost-)effectiveness and/or budget-impact of new interventions, while making these interventions available to patients at an early stage.

    “It has been proposed as a policy-tool to delay the final reimbursement decision, decreasing the uncertainty on the (cost-)effectiveness and/or budget-impact of new interventions, while making these interventions available to patients at an early stage [42, 43].”

    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 [43]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Iyn-Hyang L, Karen B, Catherine H, et al. International experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure: influencing patients and providers and regulating industryda systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;20(1):52e59.
  2. Godman B, Shrank W, Wettermark B, et al. Use of generics: a critical cost containment measure for all healthcare professionals in Europe? Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2010;3(8):2470e2494.
  3. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, et al. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):179e190.
  4. Garrison Jr LP, Carlson JJ, Bajaj PS, et al. Private sector risk-sharing agreements in the United States: trends, barriers, and prospects. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(9):632e640.
  5. Navarria A, Drago V, Gozzo L, et al. Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? "Success fee": a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure. Value Health. 2015;18(1): 131e136.
  6. Klappe-Sabadi G, Jansman FGA, Honkoop HA, et al. Regionale verschillen in voorschrijfgedrag trastuzumab opnieuw getoetst. PW Wetenschappelijk Platform. 2008;2(7):154e158.
  7. Makady A, van Veelen A, de Boer A, et al. Implementing managed entry agreement in practice: the Dutch reality check. Health Policy. 2019;123(3):267e274.
  8. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533e544.
  9. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277e1288.
  10. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349e357.
  11. Bouvy JC, Jonsson P, Longson C, et al. Health technology assessment in the context of adaptive pathways for medicines in Europe: challenges and opportunities. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100(6):594e597.
  12. Bevir M. Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2012.
  13. Duit A, Galaz V. Governance and complexity: emerging issues for governance theory. Governance. 2008;21(3):311e335.
  14. Faulkner SD, Lee M, Qin D, et al. Pricing and reimbursement experiences and insights in the European Union and the United States: lessons learned to approach adaptive payer pathways. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100(6):730e742.
  15. Carlson JJ, Gries KS, Yeung K, et al. Current status and trends in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(3):231e238.
  16. Makady A, Stegenga H, Ciaglia A, et al. Practical implications of using real-world evidence (RWE) in comparative effectiveness research: learnings from IMI-GetReal. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(6): 485e490.
  17. van Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ. 2012;344(3):e55.
  18. Blommestein HM, Franken MG, Uyl-de Groot CA. A practical guide for using registry data to inform decisions about the cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs: lessons learned from the PHAROS registry. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(6):551e560.
  19. Mohseninejad L, van Gils C, Uyl-de Groot CA, et al. Evaluation of patient registries supporting reimbursement decisions: the case of oxaliplatin for treatment of stage III colon cancer. Value Health. 2015;18(1):84e90.
  20. Alemayehu D, Ali MPP Riaz, Alvir JM, et al. Examination of data, analytical issues and proposed methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research using "real-world data". J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(9):S3eS37.
  21. Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BM, et al. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1223e1231.
  22. Garbe E, Suissa S. Pharmacoepidemiology. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I, eds. Handbook of Epidemiology. New York, NY: Springer; 2014:1875e1925.
  23. Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Debray T, et al. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2017;36(8):1210e1226.
  24. Berger ML, Sox H, Willke RJ, et al. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real- world evidence in health care decision making. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(9):1033e1039.
  25. Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Berger ML, et al. Reporting to improve reproducibility and facilitate validity assessment for healthcare database studies V1.0. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(8):1018e1032.
  26. Kleijnen S, Lipska I, Alves TL, et al. Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(9):1768e1775.
  27. Makady A, ten Ham R, de Boer A, et al. Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): a comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health. 2017;20(4):520e532.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Makady, A., van Acker, S., Nijmeijer, H., de Boer, A., Hillege, H., Klungel, O., & Goettsch, W.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Makady, Amr
ORCID
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
399-407
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.016
OpenAlex
W2937821907
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
managed entry agreements, health technology assessment, outcomes research, stakeholder perspectives, drug reimbursement policy, Netherlands, policy implementation
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Budgets, Health Expenditures, Financial Management, Hospital, Health Policy, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Netherlands, Policy Making, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Program Evaluation, Drug Costs, Drug Approval, Hospital Costs

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