When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs

Marcelien H. E. Callenbach, Rick A. Vreman, Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse and Wim G. Goettsch ()
Additional contact information
Marcelien H. E. Callenbach: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rick A. Vreman: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
Wim G. Goettsch: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 20, issue 1, 1-12

Abstract: This study aimed to identify the current experiences with and future preferences for payment and reimbursement models for high-priced hospital therapies in the Netherlands, where the main barriers lie and assess how policy structures facilitate these models. A questionnaire was sent out to Dutch stakeholders (in)directly involved in payment and reimbursement agreements. The survey contained statements assessed with Likert scales, rankings and open questions. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-nine stakeholders (out of 100) (in)directly involved with reimbursement decision-making completed the survey. Our inquiry showed that currently financial-based reimbursement models are applied most, especially discounts were perceived best due to their simplicity. For the future, outcome-based reimbursement models were preferred, particularly pay-for-outcome models. The main stated challenge for implementation was generating evidence in practice. According to the respondents, upfront payments are currently implemented most often, whereas delayed payment models are preferred to be applied more frequently in the future. Particularly payment-at-outcome-achieved models are preferred; however, they were stated as administratively challenging to arrange. The respondents were moderately satisfied with the payment and reimbursement system in the Netherlands, arguing that the transparency of the final agreements and mutual trust could be improved. These insights can provide stakeholders with future direction when negotiating and implementing innovative reimbursement and payment models. Attention should be paid to the main barriers that are currently perceived as hindering a more frequent implementation of the preferred models and how national policy structures can facilitate a successful implementation.

Keywords: managed entry agreements; outcome-based reimbursement; delayed payment models; stakeholder perspectives; pharmaceutical reimbursement; health technology assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/340/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/340/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:340-:d:1015035

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().