↓ Skip to main content

From market access to patient access: overview of evidence-based approaches for the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals in 36 European countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From market access to patient access: overview of evidence-based approaches for the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals in 36 European countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0028-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitra Panteli, Helene Eckhardt, Alexandra Nolting, Reinhard Busse, Michael Kulig

Abstract

Coverage decisions determining the benefit baskets of health systems have been increasingly relying on evidence regarding patient benefit and costs. Relevant structures, methodologies, and processes have especially been established for pharmaceuticals but approaches differ. The objective of this work was thus to identify institutions in a broad range of European countries (n = 36) in charge of determining the value of pharmaceuticals for pricing and reimbursement purposes and to map their decision-making process; to examine the different approaches and consider national and supranational possibilities for best practice. Institutions were identified through websites of international networks, ministries, and published literature. Details on institutional practices were supplemented with information from institution websites and linked online sources. The type and extent of information available varied considerably across countries. Different types of public regulatory bodies are involved in pharmaceutical coverage decisions, assuming a range of responsibilities. As a rule, the assessment of scientific evidence is kept structurally separate from its appraisal. Recommendations on value are uniformly issued by specific committees within or commissioned by responsible institutions; these institutions often also act as decision-makers on reimbursement status and level or market price. While effectiveness and costs are important criteria in all countries, the latter are often considered on a case-by-case basis. In all countries, manufacturer applications, including relevant evidence, are used as one of the main sources of information for the assessment. Transparency of evidence-based coverage decisions should be enhanced. International collaboration can facilitate knowledge exchange, improve efficiency of information production, and strengthen new or developing systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 159 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Researcher 32 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Other 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 4%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 16%
Social Sciences 20 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 41 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
#4,049,959
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#548
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,148
of 281,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.