Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers

Open access
Adamski, Jakub, Godman, Brian, Ofierska-Sujkowska, Gabriella, Osińska, Bogusława, Herholz, Harald, Wendykowska, Kamila, Laius, Ott, Jan, Saira, Sermet, Catherine, Zara, Corrine, Kalaba, Marija, Gustafsson, Roland, Garuolienè, Kristina, Haycox, Alan, Garattini, Silvio, Gustafsson, Lars L·2010·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-10-153

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Adamski, J., Godman, B., Ofierska-Sujkowska, G., Osińska, B., Herholz, H., Wendykowska, K., Laius, O., Jan, S., Sermet, C., Zara, C., Kalaba, M., Gustafsson, R., Garuolienè, K., Haycox, A., Garattini, S., & Gustafsson, L. L.
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2010-06-07
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
153-153
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034084563
Cited by
255
References
1
FWCI
39.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6963-10-153
The paper
Adamski, J., Godman, B., Ofierska-Sujkowska, G., Osińska, B., Herholz, H., Wendykowska, K., Laius, O., Jan, S., Sermet, C., Zara, C., Kalaba, M., Gustafsson, R., Garuolienè, K., Haycox, A., Garattini, S., & Gustafsson, L. L. (2010). Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-153

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.