Cargando…
Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland. DESIGN: Quantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available materia...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4386218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25818273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007021 |
_version_ | 1782365166120206336 |
---|---|
author | Brügger, Urs Horisberger, Bruno Ruckstuhl, Alexander Plessow, Rafael Eichler, Klaus Gratwohl, Alois |
author_facet | Brügger, Urs Horisberger, Bruno Ruckstuhl, Alexander Plessow, Rafael Eichler, Klaus Gratwohl, Alois |
author_sort | Brügger, Urs |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland. DESIGN: Quantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available material and prospective, structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. SETTING: All 152 controversial medical services decided on by the Federal Commission on Health Insurance Benefits within the framework of the new federal law on health insurance in Switzerland from 1997 to 2013, with focus on 33 technologies assigned initially to CED and 33 to evidence development without coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with numbers and type of contested services assigned to CED per year, the duration and final outcome of the evaluations and perceptions of key stakeholders. RESULTS: The rate of CED decisions (82 total; median 1.5/year; range 0–9/year), the time to final decision (4.5 years median; 0.75 to +11 years) and the probability of a final ‘yes’ varied over time. In logistic regression models, the change of office of the commission provided the best explanation for the observed outcomes. Good intentions but absence of scientific criteria for decisions were reported as major comments by the stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of CED enabled access to some promising technologies early in their life cycle, and might have triggered establishment of registries and research. Impact on patients’ outcome and costs remain unknown. The primary association of institutional changes with measured end points illustrates the need for evaluation of the current health technology assessment (HTA) system. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4386218 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43862182015-04-10 Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 Brügger, Urs Horisberger, Bruno Ruckstuhl, Alexander Plessow, Rafael Eichler, Klaus Gratwohl, Alois BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland. DESIGN: Quantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available material and prospective, structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. SETTING: All 152 controversial medical services decided on by the Federal Commission on Health Insurance Benefits within the framework of the new federal law on health insurance in Switzerland from 1997 to 2013, with focus on 33 technologies assigned initially to CED and 33 to evidence development without coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with numbers and type of contested services assigned to CED per year, the duration and final outcome of the evaluations and perceptions of key stakeholders. RESULTS: The rate of CED decisions (82 total; median 1.5/year; range 0–9/year), the time to final decision (4.5 years median; 0.75 to +11 years) and the probability of a final ‘yes’ varied over time. In logistic regression models, the change of office of the commission provided the best explanation for the observed outcomes. Good intentions but absence of scientific criteria for decisions were reported as major comments by the stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of CED enabled access to some promising technologies early in their life cycle, and might have triggered establishment of registries and research. Impact on patients’ outcome and costs remain unknown. The primary association of institutional changes with measured end points illustrates the need for evaluation of the current health technology assessment (HTA) system. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4386218/ /pubmed/25818273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007021 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Policy Brügger, Urs Horisberger, Bruno Ruckstuhl, Alexander Plessow, Rafael Eichler, Klaus Gratwohl, Alois Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title | Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title_full | Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title_fullStr | Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title_full_unstemmed | Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title_short | Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “Coverage with Evidence Development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
title_sort | health technology assessment in switzerland: a descriptive analysis of “coverage with evidence development” decisions from 1996 to 2013 |
topic | Health Policy |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4386218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25818273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bruggerurs healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 AT horisbergerbruno healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 AT ruckstuhlalexander healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 AT plessowrafael healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 AT eichlerklaus healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 AT gratwohlalois healthtechnologyassessmentinswitzerlandadescriptiveanalysisofcoveragewithevidencedevelopmentdecisionsfrom1996to2013 |