DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS
Abstract
Objectives:Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions. Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts. Results:Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice. Conclusions:Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.
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?
Previous studies have described that obtaining support for disinvestment is very difficult because stakeholders often lack the will to support disinvestment due to limited perceived value and resistance to losing therapy options.
“it has also been described in previous studies that obtaining support for disinvestment is very difficult as stakeholders often lack the will to support disinvestment because of limited perceived value of disinvestment, which may take some time to realize, and their resistance to immediately “losing” therapy options [12, 35].”
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 [35]
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
- Maloney, M. A., Schwartz, L., O'Reilly, D., & Levine, M.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute (CA)
- ORCID
- Schwartz, Lisa
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 261-269
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2735409535
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 3.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Technology Assessment and Management
- Keywords
- value assessment, drug reimbursement, health technology assessment, pharmaceutical policy, stakeholder engagement
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Drug Industry, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Drug Discovery
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