How innovative are pharmaceutical innovations? The case of medicines financed through add-on payments outside of the French DRG-based hospital payment system

Gridchyna, Inna; Aulois-Griot, Marine; Maurain, Catherine; Bégaud, Bernard

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.007

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gridchyna et al 54 analyzed inpatient medications in France that the French government had placed on a list of innovative and high‐cost medicines. The authors based their definition of innovation on the French government's Transparency Committee's opinion of the actual benefit, public health benefit, and improvement in actual benefit.…”

Section: Taxonomy Of Studies Assessing Drug Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining “Innovativeness” in Drug Development: A Systematic Review

Kesselheim

Wang

Avorn

2013

Clin Pharmacol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some observers of drug development argue that the pace of pharmaceutical innovation is declining, but others deny that contention. This controversy may be due to different methods of defining and assessing innovation. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to develop a taxonomy of methods for measuring innovation in drug development. The 42 studies fell into four main categories: counts of new drugs approved, assessments of therapeutic value, economic outcomes, and patents issued. The definition determined whether a study found a positive or negative trend in innovative drug development. Of 21 studies that relied on counts, 9 (43%) concluded that the trend for drug discovery was favorable, 11 (52%) concluded that the trend was not favorable, and 1 reached no conclusion. By contrast, of 21 studies that used other measures of innovation, 0 concluded that the trend was favorable, 8 (47%) concluded that the trend was not favorable, and 13 reached no conclusion (P = 0.03).

show abstract

Section: Taxonomy Of Studies Assessing Drug Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining “Innovativeness” in Drug Development: A Systematic Review

Kesselheim

Wang

Avorn

2013

Clin Pharmacol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Terms relating to the availability of existing treatments (eleven definitions) (7;13;15;16;27;31;33;40;44) and to disease severity or unmet need (seven definitions) (15–17;28;34;35;37) were also commonly used. Novelty was mentioned in eight definitions (7;18;21;27;30;32;36;42), while a further three referred to newness as a characteristic of innovative drugs (17;29;36). Trial endpoints or the use of an active comparator were important factors in four definitions (24;26;27;37).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Innovation With Respect to New Medicines: A Systematic Review From a Payer Perspective

Solà-Morales

Cunningham

Flume³

et al. 2018

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esta tendencia de incremento del número de terapias en listas positivas de ajustes tecnológicos ha llevado en Francia a explorar la pertinencia de las tecnologías sujetas a ajustes. En el caso francés, donde el ajuste se aprueba también en medicamentos, solo un 25, 5 % de las drogas era clasificada como innovadora y de alto costo, e incluso, un 28, 1 % de las drogas no era innovadora ni de alto costo (Gridchyna et al, 2012), siendo un llamado explícito a la correcta definición de las tecnologías que son susceptibles de ser ajustadas con este instrumento.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Fortaleciendo el sistema de reembolso GRD en Chile

Paredes-Fernández

Alcayaga

Hernández-Sánchez

et al. 2022

REPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En 2020, el FONASA introdujo los Grupos Relacionados por Diagnóstico (GRD) para financiar 65 hospitales. Para reembolsar adecuadamente los costos de dispositivos médicos, se incorpora en 2021 el fondo ajuste tecnológico para cinco grupos de dispositivos. El objetivo del artículo fue revisar la ejecución presupuestaria del fondo de ajuste en su primer año de implementación, proponiendo recomendaciones de política pública. Fueron atendidos 50,31% de los egresos esperados, ejecutándose 60,35% del fondo asignado (M$10.784.377). Los dispositivos con menos egresos que lo esperado fueron coils (-14,51%), endoprótesis aórtica (-24,42%), y prótesis de rodilla y cadera (-55,99%). Los con mayores egresos fueron dispositivos sin y con resincronización cardiaca (+33,55% y +42,78%). FONASA fue sensible a la actividad reportada para definir el fondo para 2022 (Spearman 0,944 (p=0,015)). Se observa subejecución presupuestaria del fondo. Los ajustes tecnológicos son herramientas de corto plazo que incentivan la innovación. Probablemente, en su primer año, la pandemia, problemas de codificación, desconocimiento del fondo, etc., podrían explicar estos hallazgos.

show abstract

How innovative are pharmaceutical innovations? The case of medicines financed through add-on payments outside of the French DRG-based hospital payment system

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Defining “Innovativeness” in Drug Development: A Systematic Review

Defining “Innovativeness” in Drug Development: A Systematic Review

Defining Innovation With Respect to New Medicines: A Systematic Review From a Payer Perspective

Fortaleciendo el sistema de reembolso GRD en Chile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About