Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current issues in drug reimbursement

  • Chapter
Clinical Pharmacology: Current Topics and Case Studies

  • 2758 Accesses

2

Reimbursing pharmaceuticals is considered, in most developed countries, an important part of delivering healthcare, be it by the state - or so-called “Beveridge Systems”, by private health insurance providers, or by independent, non-profit statutory institutions - the so-called “Bismarck” system [1, 2]. Notably, this has also been the case for Medicare in the USA due to the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, which was passed in 2003 [3].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 199.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bismarck versus Beveridge: Social Insurance Systems in Europe CESifo DICE Report 2008 [cited 1 March 2010. 69-71]. Available from: http://www.cesifo-group.de/pls/guestci/results.run_query?v_it_folder_list=2888&v_page_title=CESifo%20DICE%20Report%204/2008%20&v_num_nles=25&v_display_results=S&v_order_by=autor

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Zee J, Kroneman M (2007) Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs. BMC Health Ser Res 7(1): 94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frencher SK Jr, Glied S (2006) The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act: prescription drugs and academic medicine. Acad Med 81(9): 812–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vogler S, et al. (2008) PPRI Report, [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://ppri.oebig.at/index.aspx?Navigation=r1210-

    Google Scholar 

  5. PPRI Pharma Profiles, [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://ppri.oebig.at/index.aspx?Navigation=r1211-

    Google Scholar 

  6. Steinbrook R (2006) The Price of Sight-Ranibizumab, Bevacizumab, and the Treatment of Macular Degeneration. N Engl J Med 355(14): 1409–1412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. CMS LCD for Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin®). [cited 15 Jan. 2010], Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewlcd.asp?lcd_id=29961&lcd_version=5&basket=lcd%3A29961%3A5%3AIntravitreal+Bevacizumab+%28Avastin%C2%AE%29%3AMACH~hPart+B%3AFirst+Coast+Service+Options+Inc.+%2809302%29%3A#top

    Google Scholar 

  8. Raftery J, et al. (2007) Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 91(9): 1244–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/

    Google Scholar 

  10. IQWiG Website, [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.iqwig.de/institute-for-quality-and-efnciency-in-health.2.en.html

    Google Scholar 

  11. Haute Autorité de santé [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_5443/english?cid=c_5443

    Google Scholar 

  12. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/home

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pbs-general-listing-committee3.htm

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, et al. (2010) Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9: 277–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Legal Basis for the Austrian Reimbursement List [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.sozialversicherung.at/portal27/portal/esvportal/channel_content/cmsWindow?p_tabid=5 &p_menuid=64740&action=2

    Google Scholar 

  16. College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ) [cited 1 March 2010], Available from: http://www.cvz.nl/

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garattini S, Bertele V (2008) Do we learn the right things from clinical trials? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64(2): 115–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ESIP website [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: www.esip.org

    Google Scholar 

  19. President Barroso unveils his new team (2009) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1837&format=HTML&aged=0&danguage=EN&guiLanguage=en

    Google Scholar 

  20. The Department of Health and Human Services [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/about/

    Google Scholar 

  21. Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, In DIRECTIVE 89/105/ EEC. 1989, THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: OJ No L 40 of 11. 2. 1989

    Google Scholar 

  22. DG III-E3, P.U. Transparency Committee (1999) (Directive 89/105/EEC), 30th March 1999, Summary Report, [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/pharmaceuticals/files/pharmacos/docs/doc99/tc89105_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Commission High Level Group on innovation and provision of medicines recommendations for action (2002) [cited 6 March 2010]; Available from: ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/pharmaceuticals/files/phabiocom/docs/gl0-medicines_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  24. The Pharmaceutical Forum (2008) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/

    Google Scholar 

  25. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Dec 1999 on orphan medicinal products

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haynes B ( 1999) Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcareinterventions is evolving. BMJ 319(7211): 652–653

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Services, U.D.o.h.a.H. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Report to the President and the Congress (2009) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  28. Core principles on relative effectiveness (2008) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/rea_principles_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  29. Data availability to conduct on relative effectiveness assessments (2008) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/rea_data_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  30. Development of networking and collaboration (2008) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/effectiveness_en.htm

    Google Scholar 

  31. European network for Health Technology Assessment-EUnetHTA [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: www.eunethta.net

    Google Scholar 

  32. European Medicines Agency and EUnetHTA Joint Action start collaboration on European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) contribution to relative effectiveness assessments (2010) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.eunethta.net/Public/Communication/Press.Releases/European-Medicines-Agency-and-EUnetHTA-Joint-Action-start-collaboration-on-European-Public-Assessment-Report-EPAR-contribution-to-relative-effectiveness-assessments/

    Google Scholar 

  33. Overview of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (2010) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/cefarra.htm

    Google Scholar 

  34. Steinbrook R (2009) Health Care and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. N Engl J Med 360(11): 1057–1060

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. The Cochrane Collaboration [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ray WA, Stein CM (2006) Reform of Drug Regulation-Beyond an Independent Drug-Safety Board. N Engl J Med 354(2): 194–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. NIH-Private Sector Partnership in the Development of Taxol. [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-829

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan W, Laing R, and Priority Medicines for Europe and the World (2004) [cited 6 March 2010], Available from: whqlibdoc.who.int/HQ/2004/WHO_EDM_PAR_2004.7.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  39. The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2002) Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-con-verting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 288(23): 2981–2997

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Affairs, Main Association of Austrian Social Security Institutions, Vienna, Austria

    Anna Bucsics

Authors
  1. Anna Bucsics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna General Hospital (AKH), Vienna, Austria

    Markus Müller (Professor and Head of Department) (Professor and Head of Department)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bucsics, A. (2010). Current issues in drug reimbursement. In: Müller, M. (eds) Clinical Pharmacology: Current Topics and Case Studies. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0144-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation