Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

Innovative pharmaceutical pricing agreements in five European markets: A survey of stakeholder attitudes and experience

BACKGROUND

Innovative pricing agreements for medicines have been used in European markets for more than 20 years, and offer an opportunity for payers and pharmaceutical companies to align on value, optimise speed to patients, and share risk. Developing successful agreements requires alignment between key stakeholders, yet there is a lack of summative data on how current innovative agreements are used in the real-world (e.g. the level of realised access to medicines, and rebates and discounts, which are often non-transparent).

METHODS

This research used a web-based survey of payer stakeholders to determine what kinds of innovative agreements are currently used, anticipated future usage, attitudes, and drivers of adoption. Participants included national and regional payers (or former payers) and hospital-level decision makers.

RESULTS

Sixty-six payers completed the survey. Respondents expected that the use of innovative pricing agreements will remain the same or increase in the future. Overall, they felt there is a positive attitude towards new schemes, and that innovative agreements are likely to be used when they reduce total costs or reduce uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Given payer expectations, pharmaceutical companies should continue to take a role in ensuring that they have sufficient capacity to support payers in the design and implementation of innovative pricing agreements.

Anticipating the clinical adoption of regenerative medicine: building institutional readiness in the UK

This perspective paper examines the challenges of implementing regenerative medicine (RM) therapies within hospitals and clinics. Drawing on recent work in the social sciences, the paper highlights dynamics within existing healthcare systems that will present both hindrances and affordances for the implementation of new RM technologies within hospitals and clinics. The paper argues that identifying suitable locations for cell- and gene-therapy treatment centers requires an assessment of their institutional readiness for RM. Some provisional criteria for assessing institutional readiness are outlined, and the paper will suggest that it is necessary to begin developing a program for the phased introduction of RM in the longer term.

Payer and Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Considerations for Outcomes-Based Agreements in the United States

BACKGROUND

Considerable interest exists among health care payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in designing outcomes-based agreements (OBAs) for medications for which evidence on real-world effectiveness is limited at product launch.

OBJECTIVES

To build hypothetical OBA models in which both payer and manufacturer can benefit.

METHODS

Models were developed for a hypothetical hypercholesterolemia OBA, in which the OBA was assumed to increase market access for a newly marketed medication. Fixed inputs were drug and outcome event costs from the literature over a 1-year OBA period. Model estimates were developed using a range of inputs for medication effectiveness, medical cost offsets, and the treated population size. Positive or negative feedback to the manufacturer was incorporated on the basis of expectations of drug performance through changes in the reimbursement level. Model simulations demonstrated that parameters had the greatest impact on payer cost and manufacturer reimbursement.

RESULTS

Models suggested that changes in the size of the population treated and drug effectiveness had the largest influence on reimbursement and costs. Despite sharing risk for potential product underperformance, manufacturer reimbursement increased relative to having no OBA, if the OBA improved market access for the new product. Although reduction in medical costs did not fully offset the cost of the medication, the payer could still save on net costs per patient relative to having no OBA by tying reimbursement to drug effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and health care payers have demonstrated interest in OBAs, and under a certain set of assumptions both may benefit.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

OBJECTIVES

Australia relies on managed entry agreements (MEAs) for many medicines added to the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Previous studies of Australian MEAs examined public domain documents and were not able to provide a comprehensive assessment of the types and operation of MEAs. This study used government documents approved for release to examine the implementation and administration of MEAs implemented January 2012 to May 2016.

METHODS

We accessed documents for medicines with MEAs on the PBS between January 2012 and May 2016. Data were extracted on Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC), type of MEA (financial, financial with outcomes, outcomes, and subcategories within each group), implementation and administration methods, source of MEA recommendation, and type of economic analysis.

RESULTS

Of all medication indication pairs (MIPs) recommended for listing, one-third had MEAs implemented. Our study of eighty-seven MIPs had 170 MEAs in place. The Government's expert health technology assessment (HTA) committee recommended MEAs for 90 percent of the eighty-seven MIPs. A total of 81 percent of MEAs were simple financial agreements: the majority either discounts (32 percent) or reimbursement caps (43 percent). Outcome-based MEAs were least common (5 percent). Ninety-two percent of MEAs were implemented and operated through legal agreements. Approximately half of the MIPs were listed on the basis of accepted claims of cost-minimization. Forty-nine percent of medicines were in ATC L group.

CONCLUSION

Advice from HTA evaluations strongly influences the implementation of ways to manage uncertainties while providing access to medicines. The government relied primarily on simple financial agreements for the managed entry of medicines for which there were perceived risks.

The HTA Risk Analysis Chart: Visualising the Need for and Potential Value of Managed Entry Agreements in Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Recent changes to the regulatory landscape of pharmaceuticals may sometimes require reimbursement authorities to issue guidance on technologies that have a less mature evidence base. Decision makers need to be aware of risks associated with such health technology assessment (HTA) decisions and the potential to manage this risk through managed entry agreements (MEAs).

OBJECTIVE

This work develops methods for quantifying risk associated with specific MEAs and for clearly communicating this to decision makers.

METHODS

We develop the 'HTA risk analysis chart', in which we present the payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB) as a measure of overall risk. The P-SUB consists of the payer uncertainty burden (PUB), the risk stemming from decision uncertainty as to which is the truly optimal technology from the relevant set of technologies, and the payer strategy burden (PSB), the additional risk of approving a technology that is not expected to be optimal. We demonstrate the approach using three recent technology appraisals from the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), each of which considered a price-based MEA.

RESULTS

The HTA risk analysis chart was calculated using results from standard probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In all three HTAs, the new interventions were associated with substantial risk as measured by the P-SUB. For one of these technologies, the P-SUB was reduced to zero with the proposed price reduction, making this intervention cost effective with near complete certainty. For the other two, the risk reduced substantially with a much reduced PSB and a slightly increased PUB.

CONCLUSIONS

The HTA risk analysis chart shows the risk that the healthcare payer incurs under unresolved decision uncertainty and when considering recommending a technology that is not expected to be optimal given current evidence. This allows the simultaneous consideration of financial and data-collection MEA schemes in an easily understood format. The use of HTA risk analysis charts will help to ensure that MEAs are considered within a standard utility-maximising health economic decision-making framework.

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications

BACKGROUND

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available.

METHOD

We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017.

RESULTS

Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.

Gene therapy: evidence, value and affordability in the US health care system

AIMS

To explore the challenges presented by gene therapies, discuss potential solutions, and present policy recommendations.

METHODS

A review of the literature and series of expert interviews were conducted and discussed at a Policy Forum convened by The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The Policy Forum was attended by independent experts and senior representatives from 20 payer organizations and life sciences companies.

RESULTS

Three categories of challenges are identified: evidence generation, assessing value and affordability. Possible solutions and policy recommendations are presented for each of the three main categories of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene therapies present exciting opportunities, but also pose major challenges. Dialogue between manufacturers and payers around the issues and possible solutions is crucial.

The emerging landscape of reimbursement of regenerative medicine products in the UK: publications, policies and politics

AIM

This paper aims to map the trends and analyze key institutional dynamics that constitute the policies for reimbursement of regenerative medicine (RM), especially in the UK.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Two quantitative publications studies using Google Scholar and a qualitative study based on a larger study of 43 semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Reimbursement has been a growing topic of publications specific to RM and independent from orphan drugs. Risk-sharing schemes receive attention among others for dealing with RM reimbursement. Trade organizations have been especially involved on RM reimbursement issues and have proposed solutions.

CONCLUSION

The policy and institutional landscape of reimbursement studies in RM is a highly variegated and conflictual one and in its infancy.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements for Pharmaceutical Products in the United States: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Value for money is a growing necessity in today's U.S. health care system in which drug spending is expected to increase by an average rate of 6.7% yearly through 2025. In response to uncertainty about real-world clinical and economic outcomes for many drugs, health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have implemented various contracts and arrangements with drug manufacturers that can collectively be described as performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). Little is known about U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs to describe (a) trends over time and (b) key aspects including outcome measures and terms of arrangements between stakeholders.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE (January 1, 1946-April 1, 2017), Embase (January 1, 1988-April 1, 2017), and the grey literature (up to April 1, 2017) to identify publicly disclosed PBRSAs. Articles and conference abstracts were included if they were published in English and described a U.S.-specific PBRSA for a drug. Articles and conference abstracts were excluded if they only described a PBRSA similar to a money-back guarantee to patients. They were also excluded if they only described a PBRSA between a PBM and a health insurer in which the latter would receive a discount for patients nonadherent to a drug. Results were summarized as counts and percentages.

RESULTS

From the literature review, 26 publicly disclosed PBRSAs were identified. Of these, 16 (62%) were announced or initiated from 2015 to 2017, and 10 (38%) were announced or initiated from 1997 to 2012. Thirteen (50%) PBRSAs involved cardiometabolic indications; 5 (19%) involved oncology indications; and 8 (31%) involved other indications. Categorized by health insurer or PBM, 10 (38%) PBRSAs involved large multistate insurers; 5 (19%) involved the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 7 (27%) involved regional insurers; 3 (12%) involved PBMs; and 1 (4%) involved multiple unspecified insurers. Regarding the most active drug manufacturers, Amgen initiated 5 (19%) PBRSAs and Novartis initiated 4 (15%). Relative to the initial FDA approval of a treatment, 15 (58%) PBRSAs were announced or initiated within 5 years, and 11 (42%) were announced or initiated more than 5 years later. For data collection, electronic medical record (EMR) data would have been an appropriate source for 12 (46%) PBRSAs; claims data would have been an appropriate source for 11 (42%) PBRSAs; and EMR and claims data would have been appropriate sources for 2 (8%) PBRSAs; no description of the outcome measures was available for 1 (4%) PBRSA.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of publicly disclosed U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs has increased over the years. This review's findings confirm the interest of stakeholders in such arrangements and their confidence in the use of the selected outcome measures. Each PBRSA represents a timely collaboration among stakeholders to provide access to a drug while generating evidence to better elucidate its clinical and economic value.

DISCLOSURES

No funding supported this systematic review. Yu is an employee and shareholder of Allergan. Chin reports personal fees from Formulary Resources. Oh and Farias have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Yu, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the collection and interpretation of the data. The manuscript was written by Yu, Chin, Oh, and Farias and revised by Yu and Chin, along with the other authors.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: An Updated International Review

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.

Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making

PURPOSE

Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making.

METHODS

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations.

RESULTS

The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making.

CONCLUSION

The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making

PURPOSE

Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making.

METHODS

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations.

RESULTS

The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making.

CONCLUSION

The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

study group. Sativex in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: Discontinuation study in a large population of Italian patients (SA.FE. study)

BACKGROUND

The approval of Sativex for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity opened a new opportunity to many patients. In Italy, the healthcare payer can be fully reimbursed by the involved pharma company with the cost of treatment for patients not responding after a 4 week (28 days) trial period (Payment by Results, PbR), and 50% reimbursed with the cost of 6 weeks (42 days) treatment for other patients discontinuing (Cost Sharing, CS). The aim of our study was to describe the Sativex discontinuation profile from a large population of spasticity treated Italian MS patients.

METHODS

We collected data of patients from 30 MS centres across the country starting Sativex between January 2014 and February 2015. Data were collected from the mandatory Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) web-registry. Predictors of treatment discontinuation were assessed using a multivariate Cox proportional regression analysis.

RESULTS

During the observation period 631 out of 1597 (39.5%) patients discontinued Sativex. The Kaplan-Meier estimates curve showed that 333 patients (20.8%) discontinued treatment at 4 weeks while 422 patients (26.4%) discontinued at 6 weeks. We found after adjusted modeling that a higher NRS score at T1 (adjHR 2.23, 95% 2.07-2.41, p<0.001) and a lower baseline NRS score (adjHR 0.51 95% CI 0.46-0.56, p<0.001) were predictive of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

These data show that the first 6 weeks are useful in identifying those patients in which Sativex could be effective, thus avoiding the cost of longer term evaluation.

GRADE EVIDENCE TO DECISION (EtD) FRAMEWORK FOR COVERAGE DECISIONS

Objectives: Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) Project, a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for different types of decisions, including coverage ones.

Methods: We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework.

Results: The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using twelve criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions.

Conclusions: The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

How Can Pricing and Reimbursement Policies Improve Affordable Access to Medicines? Lessons Learned from European Countries

This article discusses pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in European countries with regard to their ability to ensure affordable access to medicines. A frequently applied pricing policy is external price referencing. While it provides some benchmark for policy-makers and has been shown to be able to generate savings, it may also contribute to delay in product launch in countries where medicine prices are low. Value-based pricing has been proposed as a policy that promotes access while rewarding useful innovation; however, implementing it has proven quite challenging. For high-priced medicines, managed-entry agreements are increasingly used. These agreements allow policy-makers to manage uncertainty and obtain lower prices. They can also facilitate earlier market access in case of limited evidence about added therapeutic value of the medicine. However, these agreements raise transparency concerns due to the confidentiality clause. Tendering as used in the hospital and offpatent outpatient sectors has been proven to reduce medicine prices but it requires a robust framework and appropriate design with clear strategic goals in order to prevent shortages. These pricing and reimbursement policies are supplemented by the widespread use of Health Technology Assessment to inform decision-making, and by strategies to improve the uptake of generics, and also biosimilars. While European countries have been implementing a set of policy options, there is a lack of thorough impact assessments of several pricing and reimbursement policies on affordable access. Increased cooperation between authorities, experience sharing and improving transparency on price information, including the disclosure of confidential discounts, are opportunities to address current challenges.

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

BACKGROUND

Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future.

DISCUSSION

Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under "Hospital Exemption" from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.

Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs

Decisions about the adoption of medical interventions are informed by evidence on their costs and effects. For a range of reasons, evidence relating to medical devices may be limited. The decision to adopt a device early in its life cycle when the evidence base is least mature may impact on the prospects of acquiring further evidence to reduce uncertainties. Equally, rejecting a device will result in no uptake in practice and hence no chance to learn about performance. Decision options such as 'only in research' or 'approval with research' can overcome these issues by allowing patients early access to promising new technologies while limiting the risks associated with making incorrect decisions until more evidence or learning is established. In this paper, we set out the issues relating to uncertainty and the value of research specific to devices: learning curve effects, incremental device innovation, investment and irrecoverable costs, and dynamic pricing. We show the circumstances under which an only in research or approval with research scheme may be an appropriate policy choice. We also consider how the value of additional research might be shared between the manufacturer and health sector to help inform who might reasonably be expected to conduct the research needed. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Financial consequences of a payment-by-results scheme in Catalonia: gefitinib in advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2011 the first payment-by-results (PbR) scheme in Catalonia was signed between the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), the Catalan Health Service, and AstraZeneca (AZ) for the introduction of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The PbR scheme includes two evaluation points: at week 8, responses, stabilization and progression were evaluated, and at week 16 stabilization was confirmed. AZ was to reimburse the total treatment cost of patients that failed treatment, defined as progression at weeks 8 or 16.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial consequences of this PbR reimbursement model and determine the perception of the stakeholders involved in the agreement.

METHODS

Differential drug costs between two scenarios, with and without the PbR, were calculated. A qualitative investigation of the organizational elements was performed by interviewing the parties involved in the agreement.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included from June 2011 to October 2013 and assessed at two evaluation points. Clinical results were comparable to those observed in the pivotal studies of gefitinib. The difference in the cost of gefitinib using the PbR compared to the traditional purchasing scenario was 6.17% less at 8 weeks, 11.18% at 16 weeks and 4.15% less for the overall treatment. The PbR resulted in total savings of around €36,000 (€880 per patient). From an operational and organizational perspective, the availability of adequate data systems to measure outcomes and monitor accountability and the involvement of healthcare professionals were acknowledged as crucial.

CONCLUSIONS

Tangible and intangible benefits were identified with respect to the interests of the parties involved. This has led to the incorporation of innovation for patients under acceptable conditions.

The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions

Approval of new drugs is increasingly reliant on "surrogate endpoints," which correlate with but imperfectly predict clinical benefits. Proponents argue surrogate endpoints allow for faster approval, but critics charge they provide inadequate evidence. We develop an economic framework that addresses the value of improvement in the predictive power, or "quality," of surrogate endpoints, and clarifies how quality can influence decisions by regulators, payers, and manufacturers. For example, the framework shows how lower-quality surrogates lead to greater misalignment of incentives between payers and regulators, resulting in more drugs that are approved for use but not covered by payers. Efficient price-negotiation in the marketplace can help align payer incentives for granting access based on surrogates. Higher-quality surrogates increase manufacturer profits and social surplus from early access to new drugs. Since the return on better quality is shared between manufacturers and payers, private incentives to invest in higher-quality surrogates are inefficiently low.

Adaptive Biomedical Innovation: Evolving Our Global System to Sustainably and Safely Bring New Medicines to Patients in Need

The current system of biomedical innovation is unable to keep pace with scientific advancements. We propose to address this gap by reengineering innovation processes to accelerate reliable delivery of products that address unmet medical needs. Adaptive biomedical innovation (ABI) provides an integrative, strategic approach for process innovation. Although the term "ABI" is new, it encompasses fragmented "tools" that have been developed across the global pharmaceutical industry, and could accelerate the evolution of the system through more coordinated application. ABI involves bringing stakeholders together to set shared objectives, foster trust, structure decision-making, and manage expectations through rapid-cycle feedback loops that maximize product knowledge and reduce uncertainty in a continuous, adaptive, and sustainable learning healthcare system. Adaptive decision-making, a core element of ABI, provides a framework for structuring decision-making designed to manage two types of uncertainty - the maturity of scientific and clinical knowledge, and the behaviors of other critical stakeholders.

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

The process of innovation is inherently complex, and it occurs within an even more complex institutional environment characterized by incomplete information, market power, and externalities. There are therefore different competing approaches to supporting and financing innovation in medical technologies, which bring their own advantages and disadvantages. This article reviews value- and cost-based pricing, as well direct government funding, and cross-cutting institutional structures. It argues that performance-based risk-sharing agreements are likely to have little effect on the sustainability of financing; that there is a role for cost-based pricing models in some situations; and that the push towards longer exclusivity periods is likely contrary to the interests of industry.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs

Background

Limited resources and expanding expectations push all countries and types of health systems to adopt new approaches in priority setting and resources allocation. Despite best efforts, it is difficult to reconcile all competing interests, and trade-offs are inevitable. This is why multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has played a major role in recent uptake of value-based reimbursement. MCDA framework enables exploration of stakeholders’ preferences, as well as explicit organization of broad range of criteria on which real-world decisions are made. Assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs tend to be one of the most complicated health technology assessment (HTA) tasks. Access to market approved orphan therapies remains an issue. Early constructive dialog among rare disease stakeholders and elaboration of orphan drug-tailored decision support tools could set the scene for ongoing accumulation of evidence, as well as for proper reimbursement decision-making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to create an MCDA value measurement model to assess and appraise orphan drugs. This was achieved by exploring the preferences on decision criteria’s weights and performance scores through a stakeholder-representative survey and a focus group discussion that were both organized in Bulgaria.

Results/Conclusion

Decision criteria that describe the health technology’s characteristics were unanimously agreed as the most important group of reimbursement considerations. This outcome, combined with the high individual weight of disease severity and disease burden criteria, underlined some of the fundamental principles of health care – equity and fairness. Our study proved that strength of evidence may be a key criterion in orphan drug assessment and appraisal. Evidence is used not only to shape reimbursement decision-making but also to lend legitimacy to policies pursued. The need for real-world data on orphan drugs was largely stressed. Improved knowledge on MCDA feasibility and integration to HTA is of paramount importance, as progress in medicine and innovative health technologies should correspond to patient, health-care system, and societal values.

Targeting improved patient outcomes using innovative product listing agreements: a survey of Canadian and international key opinion leaders

Objectives

To address the uncertainty associated with procuring pharmaceutical products, product listing agreements (PLAs) are increasingly being used to support responsible funding decisions in Canada and elsewhere. These agreements typically involve financial-based rebating initiatives or, less frequently, outcome-based contracts. A qualitative survey was conducted to improve the understanding of outcome-based and more innovative PLAs (IPLAs) based on input from Canadian and international key opinion leaders in the areas of drug manufacturing and reimbursement.

Methods

Results from a structured literature review were used to inform survey development. Potential participants were invited via email to partake in the survey, which was conducted over phone or in person. Responses were compiled anonymously for review and reporting.

Results

Twenty-one individuals participated in the survey, including health technology assessment (HTA) key opinion leaders (38%), pharmaceutical industry chief executive officers/vice presidents (29%), ex-payers (19%), and current payers/drug plan managers/HTA (14%). The participants suggested that ~80%–95% of Canadian PLAs are financial-based rather than outcomes-based. They indicated that IPLAs offer important benefits to patients, payers, and manufacturers; however, several challenges limit their use (eg, administrative burden, lack of agreed-upon endpoint). They noted that IPLAs are useful in rapidly evolving therapeutic areas and those associated with high unmet need, a quantifiable endpoint, and/or robust data systems. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, and other arms-length organizations could play important roles in identifying uncertainty and endpoints and brokering pan-Canadian PLAs. Industry should work collaboratively with payers to identify uncertainty and develop innovative mechanisms to address it.

Conclusion

The survey results indicated that while challenging, use of IPLAs may be associated with various benefits. Collaboration among stakeholders remains key: Canadian agencies could play an important role in the success of these agreements, while industry should be proactive in offering solutions that will help improve outcomes across the entire health care system.

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

METHODS

The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

RESULTS

The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.

USING CLAIMS DATA FOR EVIDENCE GENERATION IN MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS

OBJECTIVES

This study assesses the use of routinely collected claims data for managed entry agreements (MEA) in the illustrative context of German statutory health insurance (SHI) funds.

METHODS

Based on a nonsystematic literature review, the data needs of different MEA were identified. A value-based typology to classify MEA on the basis of these data needs was developed. The typology is oriented toward health outcomes and utilization and costs, key components of a new technology's value. For each MEA type, the suitability of claims data in establishing evidence of the novel technology's value in routine care was systematically assessed. Assessment criteria were data availability, completeness, timeliness, confidentiality, reliability, and validity.

RESULTS

Claims data are better suited to MEA addressing uncertainty regarding the utilization and costs of a novel technology in routine care. In schemes where safety aspects or clinical effectiveness are assessed, the role of claims data is limited because clinical information is not included in sufficient detail.

CONCLUSIONS

The suitability of claims data depends on the source of uncertainty and, in consequence, the outcome measures chosen in the agreements. In all schemes, the validity of claims data should be judged with caution as data are collected for billing purposes. This framework may support manufacturers and payers in selecting the most suitable contract type and agreeing on contract conditions. More research is necessary to validate these results and to address remaining medical, economic, legal, and ethical questions of using claims data for MEA.

MONITORING REGISTRIES AT ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY: FOSTERING ACCESS, GUARANTEEING SUSTAINABILITY

Objectives: The AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco—Italian Medicines Agency) Monitoring Registries track the eligibility of patients and the complete flow of treatments, guaranteeing appropriateness in use of pharmaceutical products, according to approved indications.

Methods: This study describes the Italian pharmaceutical context and the aims and functioning of AIFA Monitoring Registries, focusing on the applications to the Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) and HTA approaches.

Results: The AIFA Monitoring Registries System has been operational in Italy since 2005. In 2012, the system became part of the NHS Information Technology system, aiming at enhancing appropriate use of pharmaceuticals and efficiency of the administrative activity. Currently, seventy-six medicines are monitored through the system, corresponding to fifty-eight therapeutic indications; individual treatments recorded are more than 515,000, for a population of approximately 505,000 patients. For each monitored product, patients eligible for treatment are registered in the specific therapeutic indication dynamic monitoring database to collect epidemiologic and clinical data, including data on the safety profile, and ex-post information missing at first evaluation stage.

Conclusions: AIFA Monitoring Registries allow the evaluation of the pharmaceuticals’ performance in clinical practice and may promote innovation and quicker access to medicines at affordable prices, for the benefit of patients.

DECISION-MAKING ALIGNED WITH RAPID-CYCLE EVALUATION IN HEALTH CARE

Background: Availability of real-time electronic healthcare data provides new opportunities for rapid-cycle evaluation (RCE) of health technologies, including healthcare delivery and payment programs. We aim to align decision-making processes with stages of RCE to optimize the usefulness and impact of rapid results. Rational decisions about program adoption depend on program effect size in relation to externalities, including implementation cost, sustainability, and likelihood of broad adoption.

Methods: Drawing on case studies and experience from drug safety monitoring, we examine how decision makers have used scientific evidence on complex interventions in the past. We clarify how RCE alters the nature of policy decisions; develop the RAPID framework for synchronizing decision-maker activities with stages of RCE; and provide guidelines on evidence thresholds for incremental decision-making.

Results: In contrast to traditional evaluations, RCE provides early evidence on effectiveness and facilitates a stepped approach to decision making in expectation of future regularly updated evidence. RCE allows for identification of trends in adjusted effect size. It supports adapting a program in midstream in response to interim findings, or adapting the evaluation strategy to identify true improvements earlier. The 5-step RAPID approach that utilizes the cumulating evidence of program effectiveness over time could increase policy-makers' confidence in expediting decisions.

Conclusions: RCE enables a step-wise approach to HTA decision-making, based on gradually emerging evidence, reducing delays in decision-making processes after traditional one-time evaluations.

Disinvestment and Value-Based Purchasing Strategies for Pharmaceuticals: An International Review

Pharmaceutical expenditure has increased rapidly across many Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries over the past three decades. This growth is an increasing concern for governments and other third-party payers seeking to provide equitable and comprehensive healthcare within sustainable budgets. In order to create headroom for increasing utilisation, and to fund new high-cost therapies, there is an active push to 'disinvest' from low-value drugs. The aim of this article is to review how reimbursement policy decision makers have sought to partially or completely disinvest from drugs in a range of OECD countries (UK, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) where they are publicly funded or subsidised. We employed a systematic literature search strategy and the incorporation of grey literature known to the authorship team. We canvass key policy instruments from each country to outline key approaches to the identification of candidate drugs for disinvestment assessment (passive approaches vs. more active approaches); methods of disinvestment and value-based purchasing (de-listing, restricting treatment, price or reimbursement rate reductions, encouraging generic prescribing); lessons learnt from the various approaches; the potential role of coverage with evidence development; and the need for careful stakeholder management. Dedicated sections are provided with detailed coverage of policy approaches (with drug examples) from each country. Historically, countries have relied on 'passive disinvestment'; however, due to (1) the availability of new cost-effectiveness evidence, or (2) 'leakage' in drug utilisation, or (3) market failure in terms of price competition, there is an increasing focus towards 'active disinvestment'. Isolating low-value drugs that would create headroom for innovative new products to enter the market is also motivating disinvestment efforts by multiple parties, including industry. Historically, disinvestment has mainly taken the form of price reductions, especially when market failures are perceived to exist, and restricting treatment to subpopulations, particularly when a drug is no longer considered value for money. There is considerable experimentation internationally in mechanisms for disinvestment and the opportunity for countries to learn from each other. Ongoing evaluation of disinvestment strategies is essential, and ought to be reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

Health technology assessment of cancer drugs in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia: should the United States take notice?

Cancer remains a global problem, with 7.5 million deaths annually, making it responsible for approximately 13% of deaths from all causes. Cancer also becomes more prevalent as the population ages, making it a major health policy challenge for many countries around the world. However, the encouraging news is that the number of cancer-related deaths has stabilized in many countries. At least part of this success may be attributed to improved diagnosis, early intervention strategies and the development of a newer class of anticancer agents, collectively called "targeted therapies", that are more specific in inhibiting key pathways in tumour genesis. However, these newer drugs are associated with a higher cost. As a result, expenditures for agents and cancer in general have been rising rapidly, far beyond the rate of inflation. Some view this as threatening the very health care systems themselves, which are integral to the modern social contract. Different countries have adopted unique mechanisms to facilitate patient access to these newer agents, with the intent of ensuring value for money and sustainability. In this review, cancer care policies and mechanisms for patient access to new drugs will be discussed and compared between select countries. Given its position as a country that allows free pharmaceutical pricing and multi-payer health insurance, the USA will be the reference country and will be compared with the UK, Canada and Australia, three countries with socialized health care systems and active health technology assessment programmes.

Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of "Coverage with Evidence Development" decisions from 1996 to 2013

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland.

DESIGN

Quantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available material and prospective, structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders.

SETTING

All 152 controversial medical services decided on by the Federal Commission on Health Insurance Benefits within the framework of the new federal law on health insurance in Switzerland from 1997 to 2013, with focus on 33 technologies assigned initially to CED and 33 to evidence development without coverage.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with numbers and type of contested services assigned to CED per year, the duration and final outcome of the evaluations and perceptions of key stakeholders.

RESULTS

The rate of CED decisions (82 total; median 1.5/year; range 0-9/year), the time to final decision (4.5 years median; 0.75 to +11 years) and the probability of a final 'yes' varied over time. In logistic regression models, the change of office of the commission provided the best explanation for the observed outcomes. Good intentions but absence of scientific criteria for decisions were reported as major comments by the stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of CED enabled access to some promising technologies early in their life cycle, and might have triggered establishment of registries and research. Impact on patients' outcome and costs remain unknown. The primary association of institutional changes with measured end points illustrates the need for evaluation of the current health technology assessment (HTA) system.

Futurescapes: expectations in Europe for relative effectiveness evidence for drugs in 2020

AIM

Explore key factors influencing future expectations for the production of evidence of relative effectiveness (RE) for drugs in Europe in 2020; construct three plausible future scenarios for RE evidence generation.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Semi-structured key informant interviews and three rounds of modified Delphi to gather expert perspectives and develop future scenarios.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

Most influential factors were degree of regulator use of postmarketing authorization (postlaunch) efficacy studies and adaptive licensing; degree of pan-European health technology assessment body coordination in reviewing prelaunch evidence and demanding postlaunch studies; the nature of regulator - health technology assessment body interaction. The most likely scenario entailed some change with postlaunch regulatory studies driving the likely nature of RE evidence generated.

Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? "Success fee": a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure

BACKGROUND

Drug costs have risen rapidly in the last decade, driving third-party payers to adopt performance-based agreements that provide either a discount before payment or an ex post reimbursement on the basis of treatments' effectiveness and/or safety issues.

OBJECTIVES

This article analyses the strategies currently approved in Italy and proposes a novel model called "success fee" to improve payment-by-result schemes and to guarantee patients rapid access to novel therapies.

METHODS

A review of the existing risk-sharing schemes in Italy has been performed, and data provided by the Italian National report (2012) on drug use have been analyzed to assess the impact on drug expenditure deriving from the application of "traditional" performance-based strategies since their introduction in 2006.

RESULTS

Such schemes have poorly contributed to the fulfillment of the purpose in Italy, producing a trifling refund, compared with relevant drugs costs for the National Health System : €121 million out of a total of €3696 million paid. The novel risk-sharing agreement called "success fee" has been adopted for a new high-cost therapy approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, pirfenidone, and consists of an ex post payment made by the National Health System to the manufacturer for those patients who received a real benefit from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

"Success fee" represents an effective strategy to promote value-based pricing, making available to patients a rapid access to innovative and expensive therapies, with an affordable impact on drug expenditure and, simultaneously, ensuring third-party payers to share with manufacturers the risk deriving from uncertain safety and effectiveness.

The role of health technology assessment bodies in shaping drug development

The use of health technology assessment (HTA) to inform policy-making is established in most developed countries. Compared to licensing agencies, HTA agencies have different interests and, therefore, different evidence requirements. Criteria for coverage or reimbursement decisions on pharmaceutical compounds vary; however, it is common to include, as part of the HTA, a comparative effectiveness evaluation. This type of clinical data might go beyond that required for market authorization, thus creating an additional evidence gap between the regulatory and the reimbursement submission. The relevance of submissions to HTA agencies is consistently increasing in a pharmaceutical company’s perspective, as market prospects are strongly influenced by third-party payers’ coverage. In this study, we aim to describe current HTA activities with a potential impact throughout the drug development process of pharmaceuticals, with a comparative emphasis on the systems in place in Italy and in the UK. Based on an extensive literature and website review, we identified three major classes of HTA activities, beyond mainstream HTA, with the potential to influence the drug development program: 1) horizon scanning and early HTA; 2) bipartite and tripartite early dialogue between manufacturers, regulators, and HTA assessors; and 3) managed market entry agreements. From early stages of clinical research up to postauthorization studies, there is a trend toward increased collaboration between parties, anticipation of market access evidence collection, and postmarketing risk-sharing. Heterogeneity of HTA practices increases the complexity of the market access environment. Overall, there are signals that market access departments are gaining importance in the pharmaceutical companies, but there is still a lack of evidence and reporting on how the increasing relevance of HTA has reshaped the way clinical development is designed and managed.

Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden

Managed entry agreements are a set of instruments used to reduce the impact of uncertainty and high prices when introducing new medicines. This study develops a conceptual framework for these agreements and tests it by exploring variations in their implementation in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden and over time as well as their governance structures. Using publicly available data from HTA agencies and survey data from the European Medicines Information Network, a database of agreements implemented between 2003 and 2012 was developed. A review of governance structures was also undertaken. In December 2012 there were 133 active MEAs for different medicine-indications across the four countries. These corresponded to 110 unique medicine-indications. Over time there has been a steady growth in the number of agreements implemented, with the highest number in the Netherlands in 2012. The number of new agreements introduced each year followed a different pattern. In Belgium and England it increased over time, while it decreased in the Netherlands and fluctuated in Sweden. Only 18 (16%) of the unique medicine-indication pairs identified were part of an agreement in two or more countries. England uses mainly discounts and free doses to influence prices. The Netherlands and Sweden have focused more on addressing uncertainties through coverage with evidence development and, in Sweden, on monitoring use and compliance with restrictions through registries. Belgium uses a combination of the above. Despite similar reasons being cited for managed entry agreements implementation, only in a minority of cases have countries implemented an agreement for the same medicine-indication; when they do, a different agreement type is often implemented. Differences in governance across countries partly explain such variations. However, more research is needed to understand whether e.g. risk-perception and/or notion of what constitutes a high price differ between these countries.

Pricing and reimbursement frameworks in Central Eastern Europe: a decision tool to support choices

AIM

Given limited financial resources in the Central Eastern European (CEE) region, challenges in obtaining access to innovative medical technologies are formidable. The objective of this research was to develop a decision tree that supports decision makers and drug manufacturers from CEE region in their search for optimal innovative pricing and reimbursement scheme (IPRSs).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to search for published IPRSs, and then ten experts from the CEE region were interviewed to ascertain their opinions on these schemes.

RESULTS

In total, 33 articles representing 46 unique IPRSs were analyzed. Based on our literature review and subsequent expert input, key decision nodes and branches of the decision tree were developed.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that outcome-based schemes are better suited to deal with uncertainties surrounding cost effectiveness, while non-outcome-based schemes are more appropriate for pricing and budget impact challenges.

Current status and trends in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers

Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). We performed a review of PBRSAs over the past 20 years (1993-2013) using available databases and reports from colleagues and healthcare experts. These were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy of scheme types and assessed in terms of the underlying product and market attributes for each scheme. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of scheme adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and product and market factors. Our search yielded 148 arrangements. From this set, 65 arrangements included a coverage with an evidence development component, 20 included a conditional treatment continuation component, 54 included a performance-linked reimbursement component, and 42 included a financial utilization component. Each type of scheme addresses fundamental uncertainties that exist when products enter the market. The pace of adoption appears to be slowing, but new countries continue to implement PBRSAs. Over this 20-year period, there has been a consistent movement toward arrangements that minimize administrative burden. In conclusion, the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be slowing but still has traction in many health systems. These remain a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products. The long-term viability and growth of these arrangements will rest in the ability of the parties to develop mutually beneficial arrangements that entail minimal administrative burden in their development and implementation.