Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation

Objectives Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The European journal of health economics 2014-07, Vol.15 (6), p.577-589
Hauptverfasser: Ruof, Jörg, Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm, Schulenburg, J.-Matthias, Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 589
container_issue 6
container_start_page 577
container_title The European journal of health economics
container_volume 15
creator Ruof, Jörg
Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm
Schulenburg, J.-Matthias
Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos
description Objectives Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development. Methods All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers' benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events. Results Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50 % of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63 %, but only in 50 % of identified subgroups and 40 % of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as 'progression-free survival' and 'sustained virological response'. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments. Conclusions Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4059963</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24138267</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24138267</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-c9d4b661fdb3e51b18d096edbd122cc69c94bf2f85d75d166818c17ee97859903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhSMEoqXwAziALHEph4DHiR2bA9K2WhakQi9wthxnsptV4rS2Q5V_j5e0pXDgNJbme28887LsJdB3QGn1PgAFJXMKRU5LxfP5UXYMAmReCQqP795cyaPsWQh7ShmrWPE0O2JFVUEl1HEW18b3M6nRYdtFYkLAEAZ0kZyuz1ZvSefIBv1g3PyBGGf6OXRuSxq0XehGFwhIMowu7gIxbUSf-OjHZrIHKu6QOLwhq6_fLjekx20XehOT7Hn2pDV9wBe39ST78Wn9_fxzfnG5-XK-usgtlyrmVjVlLQS0TV0ghxpkQ5XApm6AMWuFsqqsW9ZK3lS8ASEkSAsVoqokV4oWJ9nHxfdqqgdsbFrLm15f-W4wftaj6fTfHdft9Hb8qUua9KJIBqe3Bn68njBEPXTBYt8bh-MUNPAi3VGyUib0zT_ofpx8uthviishGeeJgoWyfgzBY3v_GaD6kKleMtUpU33IVM9J8_rhFveKuxATwBYgpJbbon8w-j-urxbRPsTR_zEtoZBMVMUvJHm3kQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1535968255</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Ruof, Jörg ; Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm ; Schulenburg, J.-Matthias ; Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</creator><creatorcontrib>Ruof, Jörg ; Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm ; Schulenburg, J.-Matthias ; Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development. Methods All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers' benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events. Results Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50 % of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63 %, but only in 50 % of identified subgroups and 40 % of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as 'progression-free survival' and 'sustained virological response'. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments. Conclusions Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1618-7598</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-7601</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23771769</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Acetates ; Cannabis ; Comparators ; Decision making ; Decision Making, Organizational ; Drug Approval - legislation & jurisprudence ; Drug Approval - organization & administration ; Drug Costs - legislation & jurisprudence ; Drug Industry - legislation & jurisprudence ; Drug Industry - organization & administration ; Drug therapy ; Drugs ; Economic Policy ; Germany ; Health care ; Health Care Management ; Health care policy ; Health Care Reform - legislation & jurisprudence ; Health Care Reform - organization & administration ; Health Economics ; Health insurance ; Humans ; Investigations ; Legislation ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Morbidity ; Mortality ; Multiple sclerosis ; Negotiations ; Original Paper ; Pharmaceutical industry ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Physical therapy ; Placebos ; Public Finance ; Public Health ; Quality of life ; Recommendations ; Regulatory reform ; Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Venous thrombosis ; Websites]]></subject><ispartof>The European journal of health economics, 2014-07, Vol.15 (6), p.577-589</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-c9d4b661fdb3e51b18d096edbd122cc69c94bf2f85d75d166818c17ee97859903</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-c9d4b661fdb3e51b18d096edbd122cc69c94bf2f85d75d166818c17ee97859903</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24138267$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24138267$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23771769$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ruof, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulenburg, J.-Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</creatorcontrib><title>Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation</title><title>The European journal of health economics</title><addtitle>Eur J Health Econ</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Health Econ</addtitle><description>Objectives Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development. Methods All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers' benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events. Results Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50 % of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63 %, but only in 50 % of identified subgroups and 40 % of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as 'progression-free survival' and 'sustained virological response'. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments. Conclusions Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.</description><subject>Acetates</subject><subject>Cannabis</subject><subject>Comparators</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision Making, Organizational</subject><subject>Drug Approval - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Drug Approval - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Drug Costs - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Drug Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Drug Industry - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Drug therapy</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Economic Policy</subject><subject>Germany</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Care Management</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health Care Reform - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Health Care Reform - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Multiple sclerosis</subject><subject>Negotiations</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical industry</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Public Finance</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Recommendations</subject><subject>Regulatory reform</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Venous thrombosis</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>1618-7598</issn><issn>1618-7601</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhSMEoqXwAziALHEph4DHiR2bA9K2WhakQi9wthxnsptV4rS2Q5V_j5e0pXDgNJbme28887LsJdB3QGn1PgAFJXMKRU5LxfP5UXYMAmReCQqP795cyaPsWQh7ShmrWPE0O2JFVUEl1HEW18b3M6nRYdtFYkLAEAZ0kZyuz1ZvSefIBv1g3PyBGGf6OXRuSxq0XehGFwhIMowu7gIxbUSf-OjHZrIHKu6QOLwhq6_fLjekx20XehOT7Hn2pDV9wBe39ST78Wn9_fxzfnG5-XK-usgtlyrmVjVlLQS0TV0ghxpkQ5XApm6AMWuFsqqsW9ZK3lS8ASEkSAsVoqokV4oWJ9nHxfdqqgdsbFrLm15f-W4wftaj6fTfHdft9Hb8qUua9KJIBqe3Bn68njBEPXTBYt8bh-MUNPAi3VGyUib0zT_ofpx8uthviishGeeJgoWyfgzBY3v_GaD6kKleMtUpU33IVM9J8_rhFveKuxATwBYgpJbbon8w-j-urxbRPsTR_zEtoZBMVMUvJHm3kQ</recordid><startdate>20140701</startdate><enddate>20140701</enddate><creator>Ruof, Jörg</creator><creator>Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm</creator><creator>Schulenburg, J.-Matthias</creator><creator>Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140701</creationdate><title>Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation</title><author>Ruof, Jörg ; Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm ; Schulenburg, J.-Matthias ; Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-c9d4b661fdb3e51b18d096edbd122cc69c94bf2f85d75d166818c17ee97859903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Acetates</topic><topic>Cannabis</topic><topic>Comparators</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision Making, Organizational</topic><topic>Drug Approval - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Drug Approval - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Drug Costs - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Drug Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Drug Industry - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Drug therapy</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Economic Policy</topic><topic>Germany</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Care Management</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health Care Reform - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Health Care Reform - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Multiple sclerosis</topic><topic>Negotiations</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical industry</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Public Finance</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Recommendations</topic><topic>Regulatory reform</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Venous thrombosis</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ruof, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulenburg, J.-Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The European journal of health economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ruof, Jörg</au><au>Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm</au><au>Schulenburg, J.-Matthias</au><au>Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation</atitle><jtitle>The European journal of health economics</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Health Econ</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Health Econ</addtitle><date>2014-07-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>577</spage><epage>589</epage><pages>577-589</pages><issn>1618-7598</issn><eissn>1618-7601</eissn><abstract>Objectives Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development. Methods All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers' benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events. Results Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50 % of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63 %, but only in 50 % of identified subgroups and 40 % of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as 'progression-free survival' and 'sustained virological response'. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments. Conclusions Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>23771769</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1618-7598
ispartof The European journal of health economics, 2014-07, Vol.15 (6), p.577-589
issn 1618-7598
1618-7601
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4059963
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Acetates
Cannabis
Comparators
Decision making
Decision Making, Organizational
Drug Approval - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Approval - organization & administration
Drug Costs - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Industry - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Industry - organization & administration
Drug therapy
Drugs
Economic Policy
Germany
Health care
Health Care Management
Health care policy
Health Care Reform - legislation & jurisprudence
Health Care Reform - organization & administration
Health Economics
Health insurance
Humans
Investigations
Legislation
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Morbidity
Mortality
Multiple sclerosis
Negotiations
Original Paper
Pharmaceutical industry
Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes
Physical therapy
Placebos
Public Finance
Public Health
Quality of life
Recommendations
Regulatory reform
Studies
Treatment Outcome
Venous thrombosis
Websites
title Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T00%3A49%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Early%20benefit%20assessment%20(EBA)%20in%20Germany:%20analysing%20decisions%2018%20months%20after%20introducing%20the%20new%20AMNOG%20legislation&rft.jtitle=The%20European%20journal%20of%20health%20economics&rft.au=Ruof,%20J%C3%B6rg&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=577&rft.epage=589&rft.pages=577-589&rft.issn=1618-7598&rft.eissn=1618-7601&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E24138267%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1535968255&rft_id=info:pmid/23771769&rft_jstor_id=24138267&rfr_iscdi=true