| Title |
Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: An Updated International Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-017-0535-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Josh J. Carlson, Shuxian Chen, Louis P. Garrison |
| Abstract |
Enthusiasm for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) continues but at variable pace across countries. Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for these arrangements. We performed a review of PBRSAs from 1993 to 2016 using the University of Washington PBRSA Database. Arrangements were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and disease areas. Our search yielded 437 arrangements. Among these, 183 (41.9%) were categorized as currently active, while 58.1% have expired. Five main types of arrangements have been identified, namely coverage with evidence development (149 cases, 34.1%), performance-linked reimbursement (104 cases, 23.8%), conditional treatment continuation (78 cases, 17.8%), financial or utilization (71 cases, 16.2%), and hybrid schemes with multiple components (35 cases, 8.0%). The pace of adoption varies across countries but has renewed an upward trend after a lull in 2012/2013. Conditions in the USA may be changing toward a more favorable environment of PBRSAs. Interest in PBRSAs remains high, suggesting they are a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,314,780
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#51
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,521
of 328,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.