IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/77cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Walker

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Mark Sculpher

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Karl Claxton

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK and Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, UK)

  • Steve Palmer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

Abstract

Context Until recently, purchasers’ options regarding whether to pay for the use of technologies have been binary in nature: a treatment is covered or not covered. However, policies have emerged which expand the options - for example, linking coverage to evidence development, an option increasingly used for new treatments with limited/uncertain evidence. There has been little effort to reconcile the features of technologies with the available options in a way that reflects purchasers’ ranges of authority. Methods We developed a framework within which different options can be evaluated. We distinguished two sources of value in terms of health: the value of the technology per se; and the value of reducing decision uncertainty. The costs of reversing decisions are also considered. Findings Purchasers should weigh the expected benefits of coverage against the possibility the decision may need to be reversed and the possibility adoption will hinder/prevent evidence generation. Based on the purchaser’s range of authority and the features of the technology different decisions may be appropriate. The framework clarifies the assessments needed to establish the appropriateness of different decisions. A taxonomy of coverage decisions consistent with the framework is suggested. Conclusions A range of coverage options permit paying for use of promising medical technologies despite their limited/uncertain evidence bases. It is important that the option chosen be based upon not only the expected value of a technology but also the value of further research, the anticipated effect of coverage on further research, and the costs associated with reversing the decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:77cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP77_a_framework_for_coverage_decisions_only_in_research_evidence_development.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
    3. Martin, Stephen & Rice, Nigel & Smith, Peter C., 2008. "Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 826-842, July.
    4. Anders Anell & Ulf Persson, 2005. "Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 274-279, September.
    5. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    2. Petrou, Panagiotis & Vandoros, Sotiris, 2015. "Cyprus in crisis: Recent changes in the pharmaceutical market and options for further reforms without sacrificing access to or quality of treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 563-568.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:77cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gill Forder). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.