↓ Skip to main content

Stratified Medicine and Reimbursement Issues

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stratified Medicine and Reimbursement Issues
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2012.00181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans-Joerg Fugel, Mark Nuijten, Maarten Postma

Abstract

Stratified Medicine (SM) has the potential to target patient populations who will most benefit from a therapy while reducing unnecessary health interventions associated with side effects. The link between clinical biomarkers/diagnostics and therapies provides new opportunities for value creation to strengthen the value proposition to pricing and reimbursement (P&R) authorities. However, the introduction of SM challenges current reimbursement schemes in many EU countries and the US as different P&R policies have been adopted for drugs and diagnostics. Also, there is a lack of a consistent process for value assessment of more complex diagnostics in these markets. New, innovative approaches and more flexible P&R systems are needed to reflect the added value of diagnostic tests and to stimulate investments in new technologies. Yet, the framework for access of diagnostic-based therapies still requires further development while setting the right incentives and appropriate align stakeholders interests when realizing long-term patient benefits. This article addresses the reimbursement challenges of SM approaches in several EU countries and the US outlining some options to overcome existing reimbursement barriers for stratified medicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 27%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 14 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#9,881
of 15,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,189
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#96
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,861 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.