Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more ‘innovation-friendly’ than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?

References

• Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):121–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lühmann D, Rüther A, Schwarzer R, et al. Grundlagen und Prinzipien von Health Technology Assessment (HTA). In: Perleth M, Busse R, Gerhardus A, et al., editors. Health Technology Assessment. Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis für Wissenschaft und Entscheidungsfindung. 2nd. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2014. p. 1-57.
   Google Scholar
• Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160(10):1464–1467.
   Google Scholar
• Sorenson C, Chalkidou K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7:25–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Health technology assessments by the national institute for health and clinical excellence: a qualitative study. New York (NY): Springer; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Mears R. Making decisions at a national level: a NICE experience? In: Kernick D, editor. Getting health economics into practice. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002. p. 211-222.
   Google Scholar
• Schlander M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:534–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sorenson C. Nasty or nice? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2009;12(2):8–13.
   Google Scholar
• NICE. Process and methods [PMG9]: guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013 [cited 2018 Jul 17]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9
   Google Scholar
• Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, et al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–1271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason AR, Drummond MF. Public funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE getting nastier? Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(7):1188–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWiG. Methodenpapier: allgemeine methoden version 5.0. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen; 2017 [cited 2018 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/download/Allgemeine-Methoden_Version-5-0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Skipka G, Wieseler B, Kaiser T, et al. Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs. Biom J. 2016;58:43–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivandic V. Requirements for benefit assessment in Germany and England - overview and comparison. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4(12):1–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BMJV. Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Fünftes Buch (V) - Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung - § 35b Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung von Arzneimitteln. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz; 2007 [cited 2018 Jul 01]. Available from: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/__35b.html
   Google Scholar
• Höhle-Pasques S, Hankowitz J, Oberender P. Drei Jahre frühe Nutzenbewertung nach §35a SGB V - kritische Würdigung und Lösungsvorschlag. Pharmacoeconomics German Res Art. 2013;11(1):13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz S, Passon A, Kulig M, et al. Studien bei seltenen Erkrankungen: eine deskriptive Analyse abgeschlossener Orphan Drug Bewertungen im Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss. Gesundheitswesen. 2018;80(12):e54-e61. DOI:10.1055/s-0043-104696.
   Google Scholar
• Häussler B, Höer A, de Millas C. Arzneimittel-Atlas 2016. Der Arzneimittelverbrauch in der GKV. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer KE, Heisser T, Stargardt T. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: an international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia. Health Policy. 2016;120(10):1115–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guidance and advice list: published. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 17]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=ta
   Google Scholar
• G-BA. Informationsarchiv: (Frühe) Nutzenbewertung nach § 35a SGB V. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss; 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/informationen/nutzenbewertung/
   Google Scholar
• G-BA. Verfahrensordnung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss; 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 16]. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-1614/VerfO_2018-03-16_iK-2018-07-05.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cerri KH, Knapp M, Fernandez JL. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context. Health Econ Policy Law. 2014;9(2):119–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437–1443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae G, Bae EY, Bae SJ. Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):577–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Nicod E, van den Aardweg S, et al. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. Euro Obs. 2010;12(4):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nicod E, Kanavos P. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2012;108(2–3):167–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinner DS, Birt J, Walter JW, et al. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:69–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allen N, Walker SR, Liberti L, et al. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) case studies: factors influencing divergent HTA reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland. Value Health. 2017;20:320–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akehurst RL, Abadie E, Renaudin N, et al. Variation in health technology assessment and reimbursement processes in Europe. Value Health. 2017;20:67–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:123–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg JM, et al. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(6):577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pujolras LM, Cairns J. Why do some countries approve a cancer drug and others don’t? J Cancer Policy. 2015;4:21–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culyer AJ. NICE’s use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1(3):299–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebioda A, Gasche D, Dippel FW, et al. Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stafinski T, Menon D, Davis C, et al. Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M, Schwarz O, Hernández D, et al. New estimates of the willingness-to-pay for a statistical life year: a systematic review of the empirical economic literature. Value Health. 2018;21(1):111.
   Google Scholar
• Eichler HG, Kong S, Gerth W, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness-analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7(5):518–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):71–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people´s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ. Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:48–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. Beyond QALYs: multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(4):399–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassel D, Ulrich V. AMNOG auf dem ökonomischen Prüfstand. Funktionsweise, Ergebnisse und Reformbedarf der Preisregulierung für neue Arzneimittel in Deutschland. Gutachten für den Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie e.V. (BPI). In: Greiner W, Schreyögg J, Ulrich V, editors. Gesundheitsökonomische Beiträge. 56th ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, et al. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ. 2010;19(10):1117–1127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer K, Stargardt T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany: manufacturers´ expectations versus the federal joint committee´s decisions. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(8):1030–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammerschmidt T. Analyse der AMNOG-Erstattungsbeträge im europäischen Preisumfeld. Gesundh ökon Qual manag. 2017;22(01):43–53.
   Google Scholar
• Bestehorn M, Tunder R. AMNOG - Erste Erfahrungen und mögliche Auswirkungen auf die klinische Forschung. Pharmacoecon German Res Art. 2013;11(1):3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Ghabri S, Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: relationship to cost‑effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:173–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf J, Chirila C, Birt J, et al. Drug reimbursement recommendations by the national institute for health and clinical excellence: have they impacted the national health service budget? Health Policy. 2013;110:49–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar