Harmonization of reimbursement and regulatory approval processes: a systematic review of international experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable degree of overlap exists between reimbursement and regulatory approval of health technologies, and harmonization of certain aspects is both possible and feasible. Various models to harmonization have been suggested in which a number of practical attempts have been drawn from. Based on a review of the literature, approaches can be categorized into those focused on reducing uncertainty and developing economies of scale in the evidentiary requirements; and/or aligning timeframes and logistical aspects of the review process. These strategies can further be classified based on the expected level of structural and organizational change required to implement them into the existing processes. Passive processes require less modification, whereas active processes are associated with greater restructuring. Attempts so far at harmonization have raised numerous legal and practical issues and these must be considered when introducing a more harmonized framework into the existing regulatory and reimbursement arrangements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".