The reimbursement of new medical technologies in German inpatient care: What factors explain which hospitals receive innovation payments?

Most hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) provide payments for newly approved technologies. In Germany, they are negotiated between individual hospitals and health insurances. The aim of our study is to assess the functioning of temporary reimbursement mechanisms. We used multilevel logistic regression to examine factors at the hospital and state levels that are associated with agreeing innovation payments. Dependent variable was whether or not a hospital had successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013 (n = 1532). Using agreement data of the yearly budget negotiations between each German hospital and representatives of the health insurances, the study comprises all German acute hospitals and innovation payments on all diagnoses. In total, 32.9% of the hospitals successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013. We found that the chance of receiving innovation payments increased if the hospital was located in areas with a high degree of competition and if they were large, had university status and were private for-profit entities. Our study shows an implicit self-controlled selection of hospitals receiving innovation payments. While implicitly encouraging safety of patient care, policy makers should favour a more direct and transparent process of distributing innovation payments in prospective payment systems.

Changing payment instruments and the utilisation of new medical technologies.

This paper empirically investigates the impact of additional reimbursement instruments on the diffusion of new technologies in inpatient care. Using 2010-2014 German panel data on hospital level for every patient undergoing coronary angioplasty, this study examines the utilisation of drug-eluting balloon catheters (DEB) over time while additional payment instruments changed. Hypothesising that the utilisation of DEB increased abruptly when a new reimbursement instrument came into force, we estimate a fixed effects regression comparing years with a change and years where the reimbursement instrument remained the same. The model is adjusted for patient age and severity of the disease. The utilisation of DEB increased from 8407 in 2010 to 19,065 in 2014. Hospitals used significantly more DEB when an additional payment instrument changed compared to years when it remained the same. The increase was roughly twice as large. In short, hospitals are incentivised to utilise new technologies if the reimbursement changes to an instrument that is designed in a more reliable way, e.g. including less bureaucracy or guaranteeing fixed prices.

Reference Pricing in Germany: Implications for U.S. Pharmaceutical Purchasing.

Issue: The German health care system resembles that of the United States in important ways ­ it is financed by multiple private payers and relies principally on negotiation rather than regulation to establish prices. New drugs that offer minimal benefits compared with existing alternatives within a therapeutic class are subject to reference pricing; those with incremental benefits are subject to price negotiations. Together, the reference and negotiated pricing systems have held German prices substantially below U.S. equivalents. Goal: To describe the German reference-pricing system and compare it to tiered formularies and consumer cost-sharing in the United States. Methods: Document review and interviews with leaders in payer, policy, and pharmaceutical industry organizations in Germany. Key Findings and Conclusions: The German pharmaceutical pricing system uses modest levels of consumer cost-sharing to influence consumers' choices for drugs with therapeutically equivalent alternatives. Manufacturers are free to set the prices of their products, but insurers will not pay more for a new drug than for its comparators unless it offers an additional clinical benefit. For drugs covered by reference pricing, the insurers' payment maximum is set at a level that ensures sufficient choices of low-priced options. These models offer an alternative to the U.S. system of tiered formularies.

Physicians' Decision Making on Adoption of New Technologies and Role of Coverage with Evidence Development: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To foster value-based pricing and coverage with evidence development in Germany, certain new diagnostic and treatment methods have been subject to a benefit assessment since 2016 to determine their reimbursement. Although this is a paradigm shift, the German approach is limited to some few specific technologies for which reimbursement is requested. As physicians encounter this regulatory instrument, the aim of the study was to understand physicians' decision making regarding the adoption of new medical technologies and to identify their perspectives on the evidence base and financing with additional reimbursement systems. METHODS: From April to August 2017, semistructured interviews with chief and senior physicians of vascular surgery and cardiology in inpatient care in Germany were conducted (N = 23). The interviews were carried out by one researcher in one-to-one appointments or via telephone. Data were analyzed inductively to identify factors and generate thematic categories using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 52 factors in eight categories influencing physicians' adoption of new technologies. The evidence base for new technologies was criticized (e.g., lack of available studies). Physicians' knowledge of the regulation of market approval and innovation payments varied. They recommended the utilization of new technologies in certain specialist centers and the facilitation of observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians saw the need for the new approach and supported its aim. However, its design and implementation appeared to be questionable from their medical perspective. The provision of summarized information on the benefit of technologies might be a possibility to assist physicians' decision making.

[Jurisdictions on the reimbursement of new medical technologies by public health insurance: A systematic review]. / Rechtsprechungen zur Kostenerstattung von neuen Gesundheitstechnologien in der GKV: Eine systematische Übersicht.

BACKGROUND: In Germany reimbursement for new medical technologies is often enforced before a social court. It is likely that these judicial decisions also affect the sickness funds' decisions on requests for reimbursement and thus patient access to new technologies in general. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the technologies that have repeatedly generated court actions and whether these actions have been successful. The focus was on differences between sectors, technology groups and indications. Based on this, we analysed in a case study whether judicial decisions on the reimbursement of the same technologies vary across the years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on a systematic review, we identified judicial decisions of German social courts on new technologies for the years 2011 to 2016. The analysis included social court decisions on reimbursements for technologies used in the treatment of individual patients. RESULTS: 284 judicial decisions on new technologies were considered in the analysis. In one third of the cases, the sickness funds were required to reimburse the costs, with a higher percentage in inpatient than in outpatient care. Technologies used in treatment of diseases of the eyes and the ears were granted most frequently. In cases involving similar circumstances the social courts sometimes came to conflicting decisions; these decisions are, in part, contradictory to subsequent assessments by the Joint Federal Committee (G-BA). CONCLUSIONS: Decisions as to whether reimbursement for new technologies is granted or not do not appear to follow a systematic approach. In the context of the seemingly innovation-friendly policy in inpatient care, there is uncertainty with regard to the "generally accepted state of medical knowledge." It is problematic for both patients and their treating physicians that over a number of years legal proceedings are being initiated for technologies that have not been subjected to a systematic assessment of their benefit.