Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42412364›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026

Use and Outcomes of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses and Additional Considerations in Pharmaceutical Reimbursement in the Netherlands.

Diederik Brokkelkamp, Vivian Reckers-Droog, Lonneke Timmers, Pieter van Baal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Diederik BrokkelkampErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. brokkelkamp@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0100-1040
Vivian Reckers-DroogErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8722-3431
Lonneke TimmersErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-814X
Pieter van BaalErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9913-2393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIn the Netherlands, the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) assesses pharmaceuticals and advises the Minister of Health, Welfare, and Sport (MoH) on their reimbursement. Since 2015, two policy reforms-the introduction of willingness-to-pay reference values and the lock procedure, which temporarily withholds high-budget hospital pharmaceuticals from reimbursement pending assessment and price negotiations-have changed the decision-making process and expanded the role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This study provides a comprehensive overview of the use and outcomes of CEAs in Dutch pharmaceutical reimbursement over the past decade. Additionally, we identify how additional considerations beyond cost-effectiveness were used in reimbursement recommendations.

methodsWe analysed reimbursement dossiers and recommendations published by ZIN between 2015 and 2024. Descriptive methods were used to provide insight into characteristics of assessments, CEA outcomes, and recommendations. For a subset of pharmaceutical indications with a CEA and a recommendation to negotiate, we performed a content analysis of ZIN's appraisal and recommendation letters to identify how additional considerations influenced the reimbursement recommendation alongside cost-effectiveness.

resultsZIN advised the MoH on 330 unique reimbursement dossiers covering a total of 350 pharmaceutical indications in the timeframe. CEAs were conducted for 86 indications, primarily for hospital pharmaceuticals (n = 49), for which assessment became mandatory following the introduction of the lock procedure. Of the 86 indications with CEAs, 27 (31%) were deemed cost-effective and 42 (49%) were not, and cost-effectiveness was classified as unknown for 17 (20%), mostly because these CEAs were judged methodologically insufficient by ZIN. Many cost-ineffective pharmaceutical indications exceeded their reference value substantially. Mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by ZIN for pharmaceutical indications associated with reference values of €20,000, €50,000, and €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were €97,300, €81,400, and €278,900 per QALY, respectively. CEA results informed proposed price reductions, by relating the ICER to the relevant reference value. ZIN also frequently based its proposed discount on a more plausible scenario analysis or invoked additional arguments, such as uncertainty in costs or effects, anticipated indication expansions, or ample revenue from earlier indications, to determine a societally acceptable price.

conclusionsIn Dutch pharmaceutical reimbursement decision-making, CEA outcomes directly inform price negotiations, and explicit reference values function primarily as anchors for negotiations rather than as strict cut-off points for reimbursement. Additional considerations, such as uncertainty about long-term effects and anticipated changes in the treatment landscape, were frequently invoked alongside cost-effectiveness to argue for further price reductions.

Indexed as

Drug CostsInsurance, Health, ReimbursementReimbursement MechanismsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDecision MakingHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID42412364
PMCPMC13615123

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.