Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands
- PMID: 39774515
- PMCID: PMC11709290
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317188
Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands
Abstract
Objectives: Solidarity-based healthcare systems are being challenged by the incremental costs of new and expensive medicines for cancer and rare diseases. To regulate reimbursement of such drugs, the Dutch government introduced a policy instrument known as the Coverage Lock (CL) in 2015. Little is known about the public opinion regarding such policy instruments and their consequences, i.e., reimbursement of some, but not all, expensive medicines. We aimed to identify the preferences of Dutch citizens regarding the reimbursement of expensive medicines, and to investigate the views of the public on the use of the CL as a healthcare policy instrument and their input for improvement.
Methods: Web-based survey of a representative sample of 1999 Dutch citizens aged 18 years and older (panel of research company Kantar Public). Potential respondents were approached via e-mail. Several policy measures, real-life cases and statements related to the CL were presented in the survey to respondents. Their responses were analysed by tabulating descriptive statistics (proportions and percentages).
Results: 1179 individuals (response rate 59%) filled in the questionnaire. Although a majority considered the CL policy unjustified, they preferred it to the alternative policy measures that were presented. In four real-life case descriptions of patients in need of expensive medicines, respondents most often indicated effectiveness, lack of availability of alternative treatment and improved quality of life due to treatment as reasons for a positive reimbursement decision. An unfavourable cost-benefit ratio was their main reason to be against reimbursement. Some argued that withholding reimbursement was a way of informing manufacturers that extremely high prices are unacceptable.
Conclusion: There is public support for patients in need of expensive medicine. Many respondents supported the CL as a reimbursement policy. However, there is a wish to optimize the interpretation of the assessment criteria and the weight these are attributed in decision making about reimbursement of expensive innovative medicine for patients.
Copyright: © 2025 Scheijmans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Conflict of interest statement
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: WLvdP is a member of the scientific advisory board for SMA Europe; provided ad hoc consultancy for Argenx BVBA, Biogen, Roche, Scholar Rock and Novartis genetherapies (fees all paid to employer); is the local PI for SMA trials; and received research support from the Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Vriendenloterij, Stichting Spieren voor Spieren and the European Union (Horizon 2020). The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy.BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Nov 4;22(1):1320. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08690-z. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. PMID: 36333803 Free PMC article.
-
Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands.Value Health. 2020 Jan;23(1):32-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.015. Epub 2019 Sep 20. Value Health. 2020. PMID: 31952671
-
Examining the Effect of Depicting a Patient Affected by a Negative Reimbursement Decision in Healthcare on Public Disagreement with the Decision.Pharmacoeconomics. 2024 Aug;42(8):879-894. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01386-8. Epub 2024 May 26. Pharmacoeconomics. 2024. PMID: 38796810 Free PMC article.
-
Balancing early access with uncertainties in evidence for drugs authorized by prospective case series - systematic review of reimbursement decisions.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jun;84(6):1146-1155. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13531. Epub 2018 Mar 23. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018. PMID: 29381234 Free PMC article.
-
Reimbursement of targeted cancer therapies within 3 different European health care systems.Clin Ther. 2015 Feb 1;37(2):474-80. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.12.005. Epub 2015 Jan 28. Clin Ther. 2015. PMID: 25638534 Review.
References
-
- OECD. Annual average growth in retail and hospital pharmaceutical expenditure, in real terms, 2010 19 (or nearest years). OECD Publishing 2021; Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. 10.1787/f15f3399-en. - DOI
-
- Miller KL, Fermaglich LJ and Maynard J. Using four decades of FDA orphan drug designations to describe trends in rare disease drug development: substantial growth seen in development of drugs for rare oncologic, neurologic, and pediatric-onset diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2021; 16: 265. 20210609. doi: 10.1186/s13023-021-01901-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Gronde TV, Uyl-de Groot CA and Pieters T. Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0182613. 20170816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182613 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources