Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment (HTA) coverage recommendations differ across countries for the same drugs. Unlike previous studies, this study adopts a mixed methods research design to investigate, in a systematic manner, these differences.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for ten orphan drugs appraised in England (NICE), Scotland (SMC), Sweden (TLV) and France (HAS) (N = 35) were compared using a validated methodological framework that breaks down these complex decision processes into stages facilitating their understanding, analysis and comparison, namely: (1) the clinical/cost-effectiveness evidence, (2) its interpretation (e.g. part of the deliberative process) and (3) influence on the final decision. This allowed qualitative and quantitative identification of the criteria driving recommendations and highlighted cross-country differences.

RESULTS

Six out of ten drugs received diverging HTA recommendations. Reasons for cross-country differences included heterogeneity in the evidence appraised, in the interpretation of the same evidence, and in the different ways of dealing with the same uncertainty. These may have been influenced by agency-specific evidentiary, risk and value preferences, or stakeholder input. "Other considerations" (e.g. severity, orphan status) and other decision modulators (e.g. patient access schemes, lower discount rates, restrictions, re-assessments) also rendered uncertainty and cost-effectiveness estimates more acceptable. The different HTA approaches (clinical versus cost-effectiveness) and ways identified of dealing with orphan drug particularities also had implications on the final decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research contributes to better understanding the drivers of these complex decisions and why countries make different decisions. It also contributed to identifying those factors beyond the standard clinical and cost-effectiveness tools used in HTA, and their role in shaping these decisions.

Dealing with Uncertainty and Accounting for Social Value Judgments in Assessments of Orphan Drugs: Evidence from Four European Countries

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the reasons for differences in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in four European countries that were not readily apparent from health technology assessment (HTA) reports and operating procedures.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with representatives of HTA bodies in England, Scotland, Sweden, and France were conducted. An interview topic guide was developed on the basis of findings from a systematic comparison of HTA decisions for 10 orphan drugs. Qualitative thematic data analysis was applied to the interview transcripts using the framework approach.

RESULTS

Eight representatives from the four HTA bodies were interviewed between March and June 2015. Evidentiary requirements and approaches to dealing with imperfect or incomplete evidence were explored, including trial design and duration, study population and subgroups, comparators, and end points. Interviewees agreed that decisions regarding orphan drugs are made in a context of lower quality evidence, and the threshold of acceptable uncertainty varied by country. Some countries imposed higher evidentiary standards for greater clinical claims, which may be more challenging for orphan diseases. The acceptability of surrogate end points was not consistent across countries nor were the validation requirements. The most common social value judgments identified related to innovation, disease severity, and unmet need. Differences were seen in the way these concepts were defined and accounted for across countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Although agreement was seen in evidentiary requirements or preferences, there were subtle differences in the circumstances in which uncertain evidence may be considered acceptable, possibly explaining differences in HTA recommendations across countries.

A Comparison of Reimbursement Recommendations by European HTA Agencies: Is There Opportunity for Further Alignment?

Introduction: In Europe and beyond, the rising costs of healthcare and limited healthcare resources have resulted in the implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) to inform health policy and reimbursement decision-making. European legislation has provided a harmonized route for the regulatory process with the European Medicines Agency, but reimbursement decision-making still remains the responsibility of each country. There is a recognized need to move toward a more objective and collaborative reimbursement environment for new medicines in Europe. Therefore, the aim of this study was to objectively assess and compare the national reimbursement recommendations of 9 European jurisdictions following European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommendation for centralized marketing authorization.

Methods: Using publicly available data and newly developed classification tools, this study appraised 9 European reimbursement systems by assessing HTA processes and the relationship between the regulatory, HTA and decision-making organizations. Each national HTA agency was classified according to two novel taxonomies. The System taxonomy, focuses on the position of the HTA agency within the national reimbursement system according to the relationship between the regulator, the HTA-performing agency, and the reimbursement decision-making coverage body. The HTA Process taxonomy distinguishes between the individual HTA agency's approach to economic and therapeutic evaluation and the inclusion of an independent appraisal step. The taxonomic groups were subsequently compared with national HTA recommendations.

Results: This study identified European national reimbursement recommendations for 102 new active substances (NASs) approved by the EMA from 2008 to 2012. These reimbursement recommendations were compared using a novel classification tool and identified alignment between the organizational structure of reimbursement systems (System taxonomy) and HTA recommendations. However, there was less alignment between the HTA processes and recommendations.

Conclusions: In order to move forward to a more harmonized HTA environment within Europe, it is first necessary to understand the variation in HTA practices within Europe. This study has identified alignment between HTA recommendations and the System taxonomy and one of the major implications of this study is that such alignment could support a more collaborative HTA environment in Europe.

MOST IMPORTANT BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS REGARDING THE USE OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Objectives: Several studies have reported multiple barriers to and facilitators for the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) information by policy makers. This study elicited, using best-worst scaling (BWS), the most important barriers and facilitators and their relative weight in the use of HTA by policy makers.

Methods: Two BWS object case surveys (one for barriers, one for facilitators) were conducted among sixteen policy makers and thirty-three HTA experts in the Netherlands. A list of twenty-two barriers and nineteen facilitators was included. In each choice task, participants were asked to choose the most important and the least important barrier/facilitator from a set of five. We used Hierarchical Bayes modeling to generate the mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor and a subgroup analysis was conducted to assess differences between policy makers and HTA experts.

Results: The five most important barriers (RIS > 6.00) were “no explicit framework for decision-making process,” “insufficient support by stakeholders,” “lack of support,” “limited generalizability,” and “absence of appropriate incentives.” The six most important facilitators were: “availability of explicit framework for decision making,” “sufficient support by stakeholders,” “appropriate incentives,” “sufficient quality,” “sufficient awareness,” and “sufficient support within the organization.” Overall, perceptions did not differ markedly between policy makers and HTA experts.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that barriers and facilitators related to “policy characteristics” and “organization and resources” were particularly important. It is important to stimulate a pulse at the national level to create an explicit framework for including HTA in the decision-making context.

Clinical trials in Latin America: implications for the sustainability and safety of pharmaceutical markets and the wellbeing of research subjects

This study sought to verify whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were registered, commercialized and sold at affordable prices in the Latin American countries where they had been tested, as well as to ascertain their contribution to the quality of the pharmaceutical market. The list of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved by the FDA in 2011 and 2012 was consulted to determine the countries where pivotal trials were conducted. Affordability was assessed as a proportion of income and information on safety and efficacy was gathered from independent drug bulletins. In the study years, 33 medications were tested in 12 Latin American countries. Only 60% of the expected registrations had been completed by September 2014. With one exception, all products for which pricing information was obtained (n=18) cost more than one monthly minimum wage in all countries. Only five drugs were classified as "could be better than available treatments." Just one of the NMEs responds to the health care priorities in low and middle income countries.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the national regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and reimbursement pathways for public health care in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland, to compare initial Canadian national HTA recommendations with the initial decisions of the other HTA agencies, and to identify factors for differing national HTA recommendations between the four HTA agencies.

METHODS

Information from the public domain was used to develop a regulatory process map for each jurisdiction and to compare the HTA agencies' reimbursement recommendations. Medicines that were reviewed by all four agencies and received a negative recommendation from only one agency were selected as case studies.

RESULTS

All four countries have a national HTA agency. Their reimbursement recommendations are guided by both clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and the necessity for patient input. Their activities, however, vary because of different mandates and their unique political, social, and population needs. All have an implicit or explicit quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The seven divergent case studies demonstrate examples in which new medicine-indication pairs have been rejected because of uncertainties surrounding a range of factors including cost-effectiveness, comparator choice, clinical benefit, safety, trial design, and submission timing.

CONCLUSIONS

The four HTA agencies selected for inclusion in this study share common factors, including a focus on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in their decision-making processes. The differences in recommendations could be considered to be due to an individual agency's approach to risk perception, and the comparator choice used in clinical and cost-effectiveness studies.

Health Technology Assessment and Appraisal of Therapies for Rare Diseases

Innovative rare disease therapies and health technology assessment (HTA) share a lot of similarities. Both represent cases of interaction of epidemiology and health economics. Both are relatively new topics in public health practice. And both pose a lot of challenges to rare disease stakeholders who are currently looking for tools to support the timely access to innovative treatments while putting budget spending in order. This is why optimisation of assessment and appraisal of new rare disease therapies is a fundamental issue in rare disease health policy. Rare disease patients and caregivers expect prolonged life expectancy and improved quality of life and they perceive innovative health technologies as a rightful way to achieve these objectives.Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a structured, transparent approach to identify preferred alternatives by means of combined calculation of relative importance of different criteria and performance of the alternatives on these criteria. The labyrinth of competing interests and numerous stakeholders involved is why innovative rare disease health technologies make an excellent case study of the integration between HTA and MCDA. This kind of formalisation of decision-making is perceived as fair and legitimate, leading to a balance and agreement. MCDA provides a stage for a debate of policy priorities, health system specifics and societal attitudes, while also addressing the impact of rarity on all criteria and considerations.

Health Economics as Rhetoric: The Limited Impact of Health Economics on Funding Decisions in Four European Countries

BACKGROUND

A response to the challenge of high-cost treatments in health care has been economic evaluation. Cost-effectiveness analysis presented as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained has been controversial, raising heated support and opposition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of economic evaluation in decisions on what to fund in four European countries and discuss the implications of our findings.

METHODS

We used a protocol to review the key features of the application of economic evaluation in reimbursement decision making in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, reporting country-specific highlights.

RESULTS

Although the institutions and processes vary by country, health economic evaluation has had limited impact on restricting access of controversial high-cost drugs. Even in those countries that have gone the furthest, ways have been found to avoid refusing to fund high-cost drugs for particular diseases including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and orphan diseases. Economic evaluation may, however, have helped some countries to negotiate price reductions for some drugs. It has also extended to the discussion of clinical effectiveness to include cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in approaches but similarities in outcomes suggest that health economic evaluation be viewed largely as rhetoric (in D.N. McCloskey's terms in The Rhetoric of Economics, 1985). This is not to imply that economics had no impact: rather that it usually contributed to the discourse in ways that differed by country. The reasons for this no doubt vary by perspective, from political science to ethics. Economic evaluation may have less to do with rationing or denial of medical treatments than to do with expanding the discourse used to discuss such issues.

A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK

Drug listing recommendations from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often fail to coincide with one another. We conducted a comparative analysis of listing recommendations in Australia (PBAC), the Netherlands (CVZ), Sweden (TLV) and the UK (NICE) over time, examined interagency agreement, and explored how process-related factors-including time delay between HTA evaluations, therapeutic indication and orphan drug status, measure of health economic value, and comparator-impacted decision-making in drug coverage. Agreement was poor to moderate across HTA agency listing recommendations, yet it increased as the delay between HTA agency appraisals decreased, when orphan drugs were assessed, and when medicines deemed to provide low value (immunosuppressants, antineoplastics) were removed from the sample. International differences in drug listing recommendations seem to occur in part due to inconsistencies in how the supporting evidence informs assessment, but also to differences in how domestic priorities shape the value-based decision-making process.

How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) initiated a pilot project on parallel scientific advice with Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTABs) that allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both the European Union (EU) regulators and HTABs on their development plans for medicines.

AIMS

The present retrospective qualitative analysis aimed to explore how the parallel scientific advice system is working and levels of commonality between the EU regulators and HTABs, and among HTABs, when applicants obtain parallel scientific advice from both a regulatory and an HTA perspective.

METHODS

We analysed the minutes of discussion meetings held at the EMA between 2010, when parallel advice was launched, and 1 May 2015, when the cutoff date for data extraction was set. The analysis was based on predefined criteria and conducted at two different levels of comparison: the answers of the HTABs vs. those of the regulators, and between the answers of the participating HTA agencies.

RESULTS

The analysis was based on 31 procedures of parallel scientific advice. The level of full agreements was highest for questions on patient population (77%), while disagreements reached a peak for questions on the study comparator (30%). With regard to comparisons among HTABs, there was a high level of agreement for all domains.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evident commonality, in terms of evidence requirements between the EU regulators and participating HTABs, as well as among HTABs, on most aspects of clinical development. Indeed, regardless of the question content, the analysis showed that a high level of overall agreement was reached through the process of parallel scientific advice.

Health and Ethical Consequences of Outsourcing Pivotal Clinical Trials to Latin America: A Cross-Sectional, Descriptive Study

INTRODUCTION

The implications of conducting clinical trials in low and middle income countries on the financial accessibility and safety of the pharmaceutical products available in those markets have not been studied. Regulatory practices and ethical declarations lead to the commercialization of the new products, referred to as New Molecular Entities (NMEs), in the countries where tested as soon as they are approved in high surveillance countries. Patients and patients' associations use the Latin American courts to access new and expensive treatments, regardless of their safety profile and therapeutic value.

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

Cross-sectional, descriptive study. To determine the therapeutic value and safety profile of the NMEs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 and 2012 that had been tested in Latin America, and the implications of their market approval for the pharmaceutical budgets in the countries where tested.

SETTING

Latin America.

MEASURES

To assess the therapeutic value and safety of the NMEs commercialized in the different countries we used f independent drug bulletins. The prices of the NMEs for the consumers were obtained from the pharmaceutical price observatories of the countries were the medicines had been tested. If the price was not available in the observatories, it was obtained from pharmaceutical distributors. We used the countries' minimum wage and per capita income to calculate the financial accessibility of a course of treatment with the NMEs.

RESULTS

We found that 33 NMEs approved by the FDA in 2011 and 2012 have been tested in Latin America. Of these, 26 had been evaluated by independent drug bulletins and only five were found to add some value to a subset of patients and had significant side-effects. The pharmaceutical prices were very high, varied widely across countries and were unrelated to the countries' income per capita or minimum wage.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of clinical trials in Latin America results in the commercialization of medicines with questionable safety profiles and limited therapeutic value, putting patients at risk and causing budgetary strains in pharmaceutical budgets.

HTA Implementation Roadmap in Central and Eastern European Countries

The opportunity cost of inappropriate health policy decisions is greater in Central and Eastern European (CEE) compared with Western European (WE) countries because of poorer population health and more limited healthcare resources. Application of health technology assessment (HTA) prior to healthcare financing decisions can improve the allocative efficiency of scarce resources. However, few CEE countries have a clear roadmap for HTA implementation. Examples from high-income countries may not be directly relevant, as CEE countries cannot allocate so much financial and human resources for substantiating policy decisions with evidence. Our objective was to describe the main HTA implementation scenarios in CEE countries and summarize the most important questions related to capacity building, financing HTA research, process and organizational structure for HTA, standardization of HTA methodology, use of local data, scope of mandatory HTA, decision criteria, and international collaboration in HTA. Although HTA implementation strategies from the region can be relevant examples for other CEE countries with similar cultural environment and economic status, HTA roadmaps are not still fully transferable without taking into account country-specific aspects, such as country size, gross domestic product per capita, major social values, public health priorities, and fragmentation of healthcare financing.

Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) often results in different coverage recommendations across countries for a same medicine despite similar methodological approaches. This paper develops and pilots a methodological framework that systematically identifies the reasons for these differences using an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design. The study countries were England, Scotland, Sweden and France. The methodological framework was built around three stages of the HTA process: (a) evidence, (b) its interpretation, and (c) its influence on the final recommendation; and was applied to two orphan medicinal products. The criteria accounted for at each stage were qualitatively analyzed through thematic analysis. Piloting the framework for two medicines, eight trials, 43 clinical endpoints and seven economic models were coded 155 times. Eighteen different uncertainties about this evidence were coded 28 times, 56% of which pertained to evidence commonly appraised and 44% to evidence considered by only some agencies. The poor agreement in interpreting this evidence (κ=0.183) was partly explained by stakeholder input (ns=48 times), or by agency-specific risk (nu=28 uncertainties) and value preferences (noc=62 "other considerations"), derived through correspondence analysis. Accounting for variability at each stage of the process can be achieved by codifying its existence and quantifying its impact through the application of this framework. The transferability of this framework to other disease areas, medicines and countries is ensured by its iterative and flexible nature, and detailed description.

A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden

This study analyses the reasons for differences and similarities in coverage recommendations for outpatient pharmaceuticals in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, following HTA appraisals. A comparative analysis of all outpatient drug appraisals carried out between January 2009 and December 2012, including an analysis of divergent coverage recommendations made by all three countries was performed. Agreement levels between HTA agencies were measured using kappa scores. Consultations with stakeholders in the three countries were carried out to complement the discussion on HTA processes and reimbursement outcomes. Nineteen outpatient drug-indication pairs appraised in each of the three countries were identified, of which 6 pairs (32%) had divergent coverage recommendations. An uneven distribution of coverage recommendations was observed, with the highest overlap in appraisals between Norway and Sweden (free-marginal kappa 0.89). Similarities were found in priority setting principles, mode of appraisal and reasoning for coverage recommendations. The study shows that health economic evaluation is less prominent or explicit in outpatient drug appraisals in Denmark than in Norway and Sweden, that all three countries could benefit from improved communication between appraisers and manufacturers, and that final coverage recommendations rely on factors other than safety, comparative efficacy or cost-effectiveness.

A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries

Considerations beyond cost-effectiveness are important in reimbursement decision making. We assessed the importance of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in Belgium, France, The Netherlands and Sweden. We investigated scientific literature and policy documents and conducted three interviews in each country (four in The Netherlands) with persons involved in drug reimbursement. Disease severity is an important consideration, especially where the level is high. The Netherlands operationalizes disease severity using the proportional shortfall approach. Sweden uses categories to give an indication of the level of severity. In The Netherlands and Sweden, severity only implicitly plays a role in the decision whether to reimburse a drug, whereas in Belgium and France it also explicitly plays a role in determining the willingness to use public resources. Interviewees acknowledged that as well as a qualitative description of the disease, quantitative information may also be useful as input for decision making. None of them, however, considered this to be of decisive importance. Although disease severity is important in drug reimbursement decision making in all four countries, all seem to struggle in explicitly specifying its actual role. Belgium and France are the most explicit by using levels of severity in setting reimbursement levels; all four countries could, however, improve the transparency of its actual importance relative to the other criteria in the decision-making process.

A review of cost-effectiveness evaluations as part of national health technology assessments of biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune chronic disease which is associated with an increasing disability in patients and high socioeconomic burden. Given the large number of economic evaluations considered by national health technology assessments (HTAs), this review attempts to clarify whether results from biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) economic evaluations form the basis of official recommendation by national HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, Scotland and England. The results show that evidence of cost-effectiveness was not equally perceived by decision makers and did not have equal weightage in defining the official listing of biologic DMARDs for the treatment of RA. As it has been demonstrated in previous studies, major barriers exist for the integration of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results with national HTA activity. In fact, as shown in this review, even when such analysis are available, cost-minimization and comparative effectiveness studies seemed to be preferred by some HTA agencies as tools to inform allocation of healthcare resources.

Valuing the health states associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infections and their sequelae: a systematic review of economic evaluations and primary studies

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template.

RESULTS

Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated.

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.

Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making

BACKGROUND

To sustainably manage equitable access to effective drugs, many developed countries have established a national system to determine whether drugs should be reimbursed.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were (i) to investigate the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish drug reimbursement decision making; and (ii) to determine the extent to which appraising the importance of full economic evaluations relative to other evidence is a transparent process.

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included all Dutch and Swedish drug reimbursement information published in the period January 2005 to July 2011.

METHODS

After categorising all the reimbursement applications and decisions in published data sources, we selected all dossiers-in both countries-that included a full economic evaluation (i.e. cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility analysis) and then investigated how the evidence was appraised for its societal value.

RESULTS

In The Netherlands, only 35 % of the 118 applications on List 1B (i.e. claiming added therapeutic value) were found to include pharmacoeconomic evidence. In all cases where drugs received a 'no' decision, combined with an evaluation that they were of similar (n = 7) or added (n = 5) therapeutic value, we found that the pharmacoeconomic evidence had been judged insufficiently robust. We also found that in 21 % of the 'yes' decisions, combined with an evaluation of similar (n = 2) or added (n = 2) therapeutic value, the pharmacoeconomic evidence had been judged insufficiently robust. In Sweden, we found that drugs that received a 'no' decision (n = 39) had been judged either not cost effective (74 %) or not supported by sufficiently credible data (26 %). Nearly all drugs that received a 'yes' decision (n = 252) had been judged cost effective (92 %). However, of all these judgements, 53 % were based on a price comparison and 10 % on a cost-minimisation analysis; only 33 % were based on a full economic evaluation. More economic evaluations were available in Sweden than in The Netherlands (97 vs. 31, respectively), mainly due to the numerous exemptions from pharmacoeconomic evidence in The Netherlands (65 %). Dossiers for only 11 drugs included a full economic evaluation in both countries; of these, the reimbursement decisions differed for four drugs. Appraisal elements were reported only descriptively; their actual influence on the final decision remained unclear. In four dossiers, the (high) severity of the treatable disease was explicitly mentioned in both countries; three of these were identical and related to indications in cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Both countries publish drug reimbursement information. Therapeutic value appears to be the most decisive criterion; the relative importance of full economic evaluations is more modest than would generally be expected, especially in The Netherlands. Although the assessment process is reasonably transparent, both countries could make the appraisal process more transparent by more explicitly showing the actual role of each different (societal) criterion in their decision making.