Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Health Policy ; 124(9): 959-964, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32616313

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of managed entry agreements (MEAs) in Belgium. METHODS: All Belgian MEAs signed between 2010 and 2015 (n = 71) were studied, including the re-evaluations of 16 reimbursement requests for which the initial MEA had ended. The analysis was supported by the findings from a systematic literature review and structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders. RESULTS: The current application of MEAs provides the short-term advantage of getting a positive reimbursement decision with lower confidential prices. However, it is not clear whether the negotiated prices are in line with the added value of the interventions. Furthermore, the contracts do not provide incentives for manufacturers to gather evidence or to set public prices at an acceptable level. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis of the Belgian MEAs and discussions with Belgian stakeholders, an overview of various issues and pitfalls related to the current application of the system is given. Recommendations are made related to providing correct incentives to deliver good evidence, establishing a correct link between identified uncertainties/problems and the type and content of the MEA, reducing the risk of making the system non-transparent, the importance of international collaboration, etc. in order to optimize the potential of this system. These recommendations are addressed to both the Belgian policymakers and stakeholders in other countries making use of MEAs.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Belgium , Humans , Uncertainty
2.
Expert Rev Med Devices ; 14(3): 181-188, 2017 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28128008

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: High-risk medical devices may not always provide a therapeutic added value to patients. In Europe, no proof of efficacy is required to receive a CE label, making it difficult for policymakers to decide on reimbursement of (often expensive) high-risk medical devices. We explore, within the framework of the European legislation, the possibilities at a national level for a guided introduction of such devices. Areas covered: HTA and legal experts worked in close collaboration with medical specialists and government representatives making a legal analysis of what is possible under the (revised) European and national legislation. Expert commentary: At national level, measures for a better evidence-based introduction can be taken that are not in contradiction with the European regulation. From a legal point of view, all restrictive measures must be justified, necessary and proportional. Several measures are possible, a.o. making use of reference centres, applying the IDEAL framework or the 6-step plan set up by the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. In conclusion, within the framework of the (revised) European legislation, measures at national level can be taken to temporarily restrict and follow up the use of high-risk medical devices with a greater focus on the therapeutic added value for the patients.


Subject(s)
Equipment and Supplies , Medical Device Legislation , Europe , Humans , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...