Around the Tables – Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe

Document Type : Original Article


1 Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

2 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK

3 Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), Berlin, Germany

4 Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

5 National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland), Diemen, The Netherlands


Across Western Europe, procedures and formalised criteria for taking decisions on the coverage (inclusion in the benefits basket or equivalent) of healthcare technologies vary substantially. In the decision documents, which display the justification of, the rationale for, these decisions, national healthcare institutes may employ ‘contextual factors,’ defined here as situation-specific considerations. Little is known about how the use of such contextual factors compares across countries. We describe and compare contextual factors as used in coverage decisions generally and 4 decision documents specifically in Belgium, England, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Four group interviews with 3 experts from the national healthcare institute of each country, document and web site analysis, and a workshop with 1 to 2 of these experts per country were followed by the examination of the documents of 4 specific decisions taken in each of the 4 countries, sampled to vary widely in type of technology and decision outcome.

From the available decision documents, we conclude that in every country studied, contextual factors are established ‘around the table,’ ie, in deliberation. All documents examined feature contextual factors, with similar contextual factor patterns leading to similar decisions in different countries. The Dutch decisions employ the widest variety of factors, with the exception of the societal functioning of the patient, which is relatively common in Belgium, England, and Germany. Half of the final decisions were taken in another setting, with the consequence that no documentation was retrievable for 2 decisions.

First, we conclude that in these countries, contextual factors are actively integrated in the decision document, and that this is achieved in deliberation. Conceptualising contextual factors as both situation-specific and actively-integrated affords insight into practices of contextualisation and provides an encouragement for exchange between decision-makers on more qualitative aspects of decisions. Second, the decisions that lacked a publicly accessible justification of the final decision document raised questions on the decisions’ legitimacy. Further research could address patterning of contextual factors, elucidate why some factors may remain implicit, and how decisions without a publicly available decision document may enable or restrain decision-making practice.



Supplementary File 1 (Download)

Supplementary File 2 (Download)



  1. Rosenberg-Yunger ZR, Daar AS, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Martin DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison. Health Policy. 2011;100(1):25-34. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.09.008
  2. Cerri KH, Knapp M, Fernandez JL. Untangling the complexity of funding recommendations: a comparative analysis of health technology assessment outcomes in four European countries. Pharmaceut Med. 2015;29(6):341-359. doi:10.1007/s40290-015-0112-8
  3. Salas-Vega S, Bertling A, Mossialos E. A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Health Policy. 2016;120(10):1104-1114. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.006
  4. Makady A, Ham RT, de Boer A, Hillege H, Klungel O, Goettsch W. Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): a comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health. 2017;20(4):520-532. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.003
  5. Franken M, le Polain M, Cleemput I, Koopmanschap M. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):349-357. doi:10.1017/s0266462312000530
  6. Kleijnen S, George E, Goulden S, et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012;15(6):954-960. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.010
  7. Kleinhout-Vliek T, de Bont A, Boer B. The bare necessities? a realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2017;121(7):731-744. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.011
  8. Nicod E, Kanavos P. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2012;108(2-3):167-177. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.012
  9. Maynou L, Cairns J. What is driving HTA decision-making? evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):130-139. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.003
  10. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--a review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86(1):1-9. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.09.007
  11. Cromwell I, Peacock SJ, Mitton C. 'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:164. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3
  12. Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N. Reimbursement decisions in health policy--extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy. 2005;73(3):330-338. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.12.002
  13. Hasman A, McIntosh E, Hope T. What reasons do those with practical experience use in deciding on priorities for healthcare resources? a qualitative study. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(9):658-663. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023366
  14. Williams I, Brown H, Healy P. Contextual factors influencing cost and quality decisions in health and care: a structured evidence review and narrative synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(8):683-695. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.09
  15. Cerri KH, Knapp M, Fernández JL. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context. Health Econ Policy Law. 2014;9(2):119-141. doi:10.1017/s1744133113000030
  16. Csanádi M, Löblová O2, Ozierański P, et al. When health technology assessment is confidential and experts have no power: the case of Hungary. Health Econ Policy Law. 2019;14(2):162-181. doi:10.1017/s1744133118000051
  17. Bærøe K. On Fundamental Premises for Addressing "Context" and "Contextual Factors" Influencing Value Decisions in Healthcare Comment on "Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(10):958-960. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.62
  18. Calnan M. Decisions of Value: Going Backstage Comment on "Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(11):1067-1069. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.81
  19. Peacock S, Bentley C. Understanding Contextual Factors in Cost, Quality and Priority Setting Decisions in Health Comment on "Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(12):1145-1147. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.82
  20. Williams I, Brown H, Healy P. Influencing decisions of value in health: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(3):187-188. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.116
  21. Eddama O, Coast J. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy. 2008;86(2-3):129-141. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.010
  22. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175. doi:10.3310/hta12070
  23. Miller R, Williams I, Allen K, Glasby J. Evidence, insight, or intuition? investment decisions in the commissioning of prevention services for older people. J Care Serv Manag. 2013;7(4):119-127. doi:10.1179/1750168714Y.0000000027
  24. Bazzoli GJ, Clement JP, Lindrooth RC, et al. Hospital financial condition and operational decisions related to the quality of hospital care. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):148-168. doi:10.1177/1077558706298289
  25. Finocchiaro Castro M, Guccio C, Pignataro G, Rizzo I. The effects of reimbursement mechanisms on medical technology diffusion in the hospital sector in the Italian NHS. Health Policy. 2014;115(2-3):215-229. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.12.004
  26. Asdal K, Moser I. Experiments in context and contexting. Sci Technol Human Values. 2012;37(4):291-306. doi:10.1177/0162243912449749
  27. Asdal K. Contexts in Action—And the Future of the Past in STS. Sci Technol Human Values. 2012;37(4):379-403.
  28. Booth CM, Dranitsaris G, Gainford MC, et al. External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:110. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-7-110
  29. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001;358(9294):1676-1681. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06714-9
  30. Moes F, Houwaart E, Delnoij D, Horstman K. Contested evidence: a Dutch reimbursement decision taken to court. Health Econ Policy Law. 2017;12(3):325-344. doi:10.1017/s1744133116000281
  31. Moreira T. Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: a conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(8):1333-1341. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.026
  32. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437-1443. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1409
  33. Nguyen-Kim L, Or Z, Paris V, Sermet C. The politics of drug reimbursement in England, France and Germany. Issues in health economics. 2005;99.
  34. Krause M. Comparative research: beyond linear-casual explanation. In: Deville J, Guggenheim M, Hrdličková Z, eds. Practising Comparison: Logics, Relations, Collaborations. Manchester, UK: Mattering Press; 2016:45-67.
  35. Deville J, Guggenheim M, Hrdličková Z. Practising Comparison: Logics, Relations, Collaborations. Mattering Press; 2016.
  36. Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. Narrative practice and the active interview. Vol 67. London: Sage; 2016.
  37. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications; 2017.
  38. Ragin CC. Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges. In: Brady HE, Collier D, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Rowman & Littlefield; 2004:123.
  39. Lamont M. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annu Rev Sociol. 2012;38(1):201-221. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022
  40. Lamont M, Thévenot L. Introduction: toward a renewed comparative cultural sociology. In: Thévenot L, Lamont M, eds. Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000:1-22.
  41. Blumer H. What is wrong with social theory? Am Sociol Rev. 1954;19(1):3-10. doi:10.2307/2088165
  42. Stolk E, Goes E, Kok E, Busschbach J. Uitwerking criteria noodzakelijkheid, eigen rekening en verantwoording en lifestyle, bijlage 2 van CVZ, Breedte geneesmiddelenpakket. Amstelveen, The Netherlands: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2001;1:54.
  43. Hoedemaekers R, Oortwijn W. Problematic notions in Dutch health care package decisions. Health Care Anal. 2003;11(4):287-294. doi:10.1023/B:HCAN.0000010057.43321.b2
  44. Zorginstituut. (2015). Pakketadvies Nivolumab (Opdivo) incl. Brief aan de Minister voor Volkgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport.
  45. Rijksinstituut voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering/Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité - Dienst geneeskundige verzorging/Service des soins de santé. Evaluatierapport Dag 90 - 1542 OPDIVO - tweede aanvraag, 2016.
  46. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Nivolumab for previously treated squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. NICE; 2017.
  47. Gemeinsames Bundesausschuss. (2016). Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richlinien: Anlage XII - Beschlüsse über die Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln mit neuen Wirkstoffen nach §35a SGB V - Nivolumab (neues Anwendungsgebiet).
  48. College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Pakketadvies 2009. CVZ; 2009.
  49. College voor Zorgverzekeringen. Brief aan de Minister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Vergoeding benzodiazepinen, 2008.
  50. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Generalised Anxiety Disorder in Adults: Management in Primary, Secondary and Community Care. Leicester (UK): British Psychological Society; 2011.
  51. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults: management. NICE; 2011.
  52. College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Begeleiding bij stoppen met roken: verzekerde zorg? CVZ; 2008.
  53. College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Stoppen-met-rokenprogramma: te verzekeren zorg! CVZ; 2009.
  54. van den Bruel A, Cleemput I, van Linden A, Schoefs D, Ramaekers D, Bonneux L. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for smoking cessation. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2004.
  55. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Stop smoking interventions and services. NICE; 2018.
  56. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Verordnungsausschluss von Arzneimitteln zur Erhöhung Lebensqualität gemäß § 34 Abs. 1 Satz 7 SGB V (Lifestyle Arzneimittel). G-BA; 2017.
  57. College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Hulpmiddelenzorg 2010. CVZ; 2010.
  58. Rijksinstituut voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering/Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité - Dienst geneeskundige verzorging/Service des soins de santé. Nota hoofdwerkgroep nr. 2003/6.4, Hoofdgroep 1.4, Loophulpen Volwassenen, 2003.
  59. GKV-Spitzenverband. Fortschreibung der Produktgruppe 10 “Gehhilfen” des Hilfsmittelverzeichnisses nach § 139 SGB V.  Published 2018.
  60. Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Westhovens R. A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare. Health Policy. 2018;122(8):878-884. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.010
  61. Gregor-Patera N, Wild C. Assessment – APPRAISAL – Decision. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2014. LBI-HTA Decision Support Document Nr: 72.
  62. Couwenbergh B, van der Meer F, Weghaus-Reus S, Schelleman H, Zwaap J. Pakketbeheer in de Praktijk deel 3. College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ); 2013.
  63. Zorginstituut. Pakketadvies in de praktijk: wikken en wegen voor een rechtvaardig packet. Zorginstituut, Nederland; 2017.
  64. Schippers E. 29 477 Geneesmiddelenbeleid. Published 2015.
  65. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Nivolumab now available for lung cancer after company offers NICE new CDF deal.  Published 2017.
  66. Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu. Nationaal Kankerplan 2008-2010.   Published 2008.
  67. Overheid V. Rookstopbegeleiding. Vlaanderen; 2019.  Accessed March 8, 2019.
  68. National Health Service (NHS). Walking aids, wheelchairs and mobility scooters.   Accessed September 19, 2019. Last updated August 8, 2018.
  69. Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy. 2002;59(1):53-63. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00162-2
  70. Roscam Abbing HDC. Kiezen en delen; rapport van de commissie Keuzen in de zorg (Commissie-Dunning). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde; 1991.
  71. Franken M, Stolk E, Scharringhausen T, de Boer A, Koopmanschap M. A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries. Health Policy. 2015;119(2):195-202. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.007
  72. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1316-1318. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316
  73. Hughes D, Light D. Rationing: constructed realities and professional practices. Wiley-Blackwell; 2002.
  74. Rooshenas L, Owen-Smith A, Hollingworth W, Badrinath P, Beynon C, Donovan JL. "I won't call it rationing...": an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:273-281. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.020
  75. Mann A. Which context matters? tasting in everyday life practices and social science theories. Food Cult Soc. 2015;18(3):399-417. doi:10.1080/15528014.2015.1043105
  76. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, et al. Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615-618. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  77. Hall W. Don't Discount Societal Value in Cost-Effectiveness Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):543-545. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.03
  78. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ. 2008;337:a1850. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1850
  79. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300
  80. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urritia J. Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5(1):1-3. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187
  81. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303-350. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x
  82. Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17(5):50-64. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50
  83. Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2016
  84. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
  85. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049-1051. doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE
  86. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14
  87. Bærøe K, Baltussen R. Legitimate healthcare limit setting in a real-world setting: integrating accountability for reasonableness and multi-criteria decision analysis. Public Health Ethics. 2014;7(2):98-111. doi:10.1093/phe/phu006
  88. Jansen MP, Helderman JK, Boer B, Baltussen R. Fair processes for priority setting: putting theory into practice: comment on" expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(1):43-47. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.85
  89. Giacomini M, Hurley J, Stoddart G. The many meanings of deinsuring a health service: the case of in vitro fertilization in Ontario. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(10):1485-1500. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00394-9
  90. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(4):766-773. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.011
  91. de Fine Licht J. Do we really want to know? the potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scan Polit Stud. 2011;34(3):183-201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00268.x
Volume 9, Issue 9
September 2020
Pages 390-402
  • Receive Date: 07 October 2019
  • Revise Date: 10 December 2019
  • Accept Date: 17 December 2019
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2020