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

Modeling First-Line Daratumumab Use for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible, Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness and Risk Analysis for Healthcare Payers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two regimens regarded as the standard of care for the treatment of newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in Singapore: (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Additionally, it aimed to explore potential strategies to manage decision uncertainty and mitigate financial risk.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective was conducted using a partitioned survival model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with daratumumab-based treatment and the bortezomib-based regimen. The analysis used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials and incorporated local real-world data where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and a risk analysis was conducted to analyze various payer strategies in terms of their payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB), which account for the decision uncertainty and the additional cost of choosing a suboptimal intervention.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) was US $90,364 per QALY gained. The results were sensitive to variations in survival for DRd, postprogression treatment costs, cost of hospice care, and hazard ratio for progression-free survival. The scenarios explored indicated that structural assumptions, such as the time horizon of the analysis, significantly influenced the results due to uncertainties arising from immature trial data and treatment efficacy over time. Among the various payer strategies compared, an upfront price discount for daratumumab emerged as the best approach with the lowest P-SUB at US $14,708.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study finds that daratumumab as a first-line treatment for myeloma exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold considered in this evaluation. An upfront price reduction is the recommended strategy to manage uncertainties and mitigate financial risks. These findings highlight the importance of targeted payer strategies to address specific types and sources of uncertainty.

The Value of Flexible Vaccine Manufacturing Capacity: Value Drivers, Estimation Methods, and Approaches to Value Recognition in Health Technology Assessment

Expanding flexible vaccine manufacturing capacity (FVMC) for routine vaccines could facilitate more timely access to novel vaccines during future pandemics. Vaccine manufacturing capacity is 'flexible' if it is built on a technology platform that allows rapid adaption to new infectious agents. The added value of routine vaccines produced using a flexible platform for pandemic preparedness is not currently recognised in conventional health technology assessment (HTA) methods. We start by examining the current state of play of incentives for FVMC and exploring the relation between flexible and spare capacity. We then establish the key factors for estimating FVMC and draw from established frameworks to identify relevant value drivers. The role of FVMC as a countermeasure against pandemic risks is deemed an additional value attribute that should be recognised. Next, we address the gap in the vaccine-valuation literature between the conceptual understanding of the value of additional FVMC and the availability of accurate and reliable tools for its estimation to facilitate integration into HTA. Three practical approaches for estimating the value of additional FVMC are discussed: stated and revealed preference studies, macroeconomic modelling, and benefit-cost analysis. Lastly, we review how value recognition of additional FVMC can be realised within the HTA process for routine vaccines manufactured on flexible platforms. We argue that, while the value of additional FVMC is uncertain and further research is needed to help to better estimate it, the value of increased pandemic preparedness is likely to be too large to be ignored.

Tackling Challenges in Assessing the Economic Value of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as a Case Study

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the value of tumor-agnostic drugs (TAD) is challenging given the potential variability in treatment effects, trials with small sample sizes, different standards of care (SoC), and lack of comparative data from single-arm basket trials. Our study developed and applied novel methods to assess the value of pembrolizumab compared with SoC to inform coverage decisions.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab for previously treated patients with 8 advanced or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient cancers from a US commercial payer perspective. Efficacy of pembrolizumab was based on data from trials directly or with adjustment using Bayesian hierarchical models. Eight chemotherapy-based external control arms were constructed from the TriNetX electronic health record databases. Tumor-specific health-state utility values were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars.

RESULTS

At a lifetime horizon, pembrolizumab was associated with increased effectiveness compared with chemotherapies in colorectal (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]: +0.64, life years [LYs]: +0.64), endometrial (QALYs: +3.79, LYs: +5.47), and small intestine cancers (QALYs: +1.73, LYs: +2.48), but not for patients with metastatic gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic, ovarian, and brain cancers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied substantially across tumor types. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in treating colorectal and endometrial cancers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: $121 967 and $139 257, respectively), and not cost-effective for other assessed cancers at a $150 000 willingness-to-pay/QALY threshold, compared with SoC chemotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of TADs can vary by cancers. Using analytic tools such as external controls and Bayesian hierarchical models can tackle several challenges in assessing the value of TADs and uncertainties from basket trials.

Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) play a pivotal role in addressing the challenges arising from escalating prices of innovative medical technologies, especially in areas like oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. Among MEAs, Performance-Based MEAs (PB MEAs) and Outcome-Based MEAs (OB MEAs) stand out as innovative strategies. This study examines the adoption of PB MEAs in the Czech Republic post a 2022 legislative change. Interviews with key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and patient groups, were conducted to explore perceptions and challenges. Stakeholders expressed concerns about legislation completeness, data quality, transparency, and methodology. Interestingly, pharmaceutical companies were less concerned about transparency and methodology, likely due to their multinational experience. Despite legislative progress, challenges persist, especially in data infrastructure, risk-sharing perceptions, and stakeholder readiness. Addressing these issues requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and payers. Patient involvement, though mandated, remains limited, potentially due to a lack of awareness. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive transformation beyond legislation for a successful PB MEA implementation. Trust, technical infrastructure, and data availability are crucial, necessitating a holistic approach. It contributes to the global discourse on PB MEAs, stressing the adjustment of financial frameworks, embracing value-based healthcare principles, and ensuring high-quality health data metrics. A more holistic, value-based MEA approach could reshape pharmaceutical reimbursement in the future.

Toward Best Practices for Economic Evaluations of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Review of Current Barriers and Solutions

OBJECTIVES

Cancer therapies targeting tumor-agnostic biomarkers are challenging traditional health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. The high prevalence of nonrandomized single-arm trials, heterogeneity, and small benefiting populations are driving outcomes uncertainty, challenging healthcare decision making. We conducted a structured literature review to identify barriers and prioritize solutions to generating economic evidence for tumor-agnostic therapies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for English-language studies conducting economic evaluations of tumor-agnostic treatments or exploring related challenges and solutions. We included studies published by December 2022 and supplemented our review with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technical reports for approved tumor-agnostic therapies. Three reviewers abstracted and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. Challenges and solutions were identified through authors' statements and categorized using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies spanned economic evaluations (n = 5), reimbursement reviews (n = 4), qualitative research (n = 1), methods validations (n = 3), and commentaries or literature reviews (n = 13). Challenges encountered related to (1) the treatment setting and clinical trial designs, (2) a lack of data or low-quality data on clinical and cost parameters, and (3) an inability to produce evidence that meets HTA guidelines. Although attempted solutions centered on analytic approaches for managing missing data, proposed solutions highlighted the need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle HTA to reduce future evidentiary uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic innovation outpaces HTA evidence generation and the methods that support it. Existing HTA frameworks must be adapted for tumor-agnostic treatments to support future economic evaluations enabling timely patient access.

The long-term impact and value of curative therapy for HIV: a modelling analysis

INTRODUCTION

Curative therapies (CTx) to achieve durable remission of HIV disease without the need for antiretroviral therapy (ART) are currently being explored. Our objective was to model the long-term health and cost outcomes of HIV in various countries, the impact of future CTx on those outcomes and the country-specific value-based prices (VBPs) of CTx.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the future health economic impacts of a hypothetical CTx for HIV in countries with pre-existing access to ART (CTx+ART), compared to ART alone. We modelled populations in seven low-and-middle-income countries and five high-income countries, accounting for localized ART and other HIV-related costs, and calibrating variables for HIV epidemiology and ART uptake to reproduce historical HIV outcomes before projecting future outcomes to year 2100. Health was quantified using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Base case, pessimistic and optimistic scenarios were modelled for CTx+ART and ART alone. Based on long-term outcomes and each country's estimated health opportunity cost, we calculated the country-specific VBP of CTx.

RESULTS

The introduction of a hypothetical CTx lowered HIV prevalence and prevented future infections over time, which increased life-years, reduced the number of individuals on ART, reduced AIDS-related deaths, and ultimately led to fewer DALYs versus ART-alone. Our base case estimates for the VBP of CTx ranged from $5400 (Kenya) up to $812,300 (United States). Within each country, the VBP was driven to be greater primarily by lower ART coverage, lower HIV incidence and prevalence, and higher CTx cure probability. The VBP estimates were found to be greater in countries where HIV prevalence was higher, ART coverage was lower and the health opportunity cost was greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results quantify the VBP for future curative CTx that may apply in different countries and under different circumstances. With greater CTx cure probability, durability and scale up, CTx commands a higher VBP, while improvements in ART coverage may mitigate its value. Our framework can be utilized for estimating this cost given a wide range of scenarios related to the attributes of a given CTx as well as various parameters of the HIV epidemic within a given country.

Opportunities and Threats of the Legally Facilitated Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements in Slovakia: The Early-Adoption Perspective

Slovakia has adopted an amendment to Act No. 363/2011, regulating, among other things, drug reimbursement and is undergoing a significant change in the availability of innovative treatments for patients. High expectations are associated with arrangements related to performance-based managed entry agreements. Opinions and positions towards this change appear to be inconsistent, and for the further application of the law in practice and when setting up the main implementation processes, it is necessary to understand the positions and opinions of the individual actors who are involved in the PB-MEA process. The interviews were conducted in the period from 20 May to 15 August 2022 around the same time as the finalisation of the amendment to Act No. 363/2011 and its adoption. A roughly one-hour open interview was conducted on a sample of 12 stakeholders in the following groups: representatives of the Ministry of Health, health-care providers, pharmaceutical companies and others, including a health insurance company. The main objective was to qualitatively describe the perception of this topic by key stakeholders in Slovakia. The responses were analysed using MAXQDATA 2022 software to obtain codes associated with key expressions. We identified three main strong top categories of expressions that strongly dominated the pro-management interviews with stakeholders: legislation, opportunities and threats. Ambiguity and insufficient coverage of the new law, improved availability of medicinal products and threats associated with data, IT systems and potentially unfavourable new reimbursement schemes were identified as key topics of each of the said top categories, respectively. Among individual sets of respondents, there is frequent consensus on both opportunities and threats in the area of implementing process changes in PB-MEA. For the successful implementation of the law in practice, some basic threats need to be removed, among which in particular is insufficient data infrastructure.

A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare appraisal decisions about anticancer drugs between the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Korea and England, and investigate whether the decisions and supporting evidence are comparable.

METHODS

This study identified 49 anticancer drugs listed by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare between January 2014 and December 2019. Of those, 46 anticancer drugs for 58 indications were included for analysis. Official appraisal documents from both countries for 58 drug-indication pairs were compared and assessed in terms of clinical and economic evidence. Evidence items and their groups for analysis were predefined.

RESULTS

Three-quarters of cases were recommended with managed entry agreements (MEAs) in England and three-fifths in Korea. Finance-based MEA types were most common in both countries. Korean and English authorities made consistent decisions in 48 cases (83%) when classifying decisions as 'recommended' and 'not recommended', while the degree of agreement lowered to 16 cases (28%) when subdividing decisions according to MEA types. When the evidence base was identical, their decisions were more likely to be consistent. Regarding clinical evidence, while the majority of cases referred to the same pivotal studies, differences between the committees' recognized comparators and the appraisal date caused discrepancies in decisions. Economic evidence, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, was identical in only 12 cases (21%), which contributed to discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

England relies on economic evaluation, with increasing use of data collection agreements, in contrast with Korea's new procedure exempting companies from providing economic evaluation. While there is possibility for international cooperation in the assessment of clinical evidence, transferability issues exist, particularly with regard to economic evidence.

Healthcare Systems across Europe and the US: The Managed Entry Agreements Experience

This systematic study aims at analyzing the differences between the approach of the European healthcare systems to the pharmaceutical market and the American one. This paper highlights the opportunities and the limitations given by the application of managed entry agreements (MEAs) in European countries as opposed to the American market, which does not regulate pharmaceutical prices. Data were collected from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Medicines Agency, and the national healthcare agencies of US and European countries. A literature review was undertaken in PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and Google for a period ten years (2010-2019). The period 2020-2021 was considered to compare health expenditure before and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Scarce information from national agencies has been given in terms of MEAs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The comparison between the United States approach and the European one shows the importance of a market access regulation to reduce the cost of therapies, increasing the efficiency of national healthcare systems and the advantages in terms of quality and accessibility to the final users: patients. Nevertheless, it seems that the golden age of MEAs for Europe was during the examined period. Except for Italy, countries will move to other forms of reimbursements to obtain higher benefits, reducing the costs of an inefficient implementation and outcomes in the medium term.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel Versus Blinatumomab in Children and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Partitioned Survival Model to Assess the Impact of an Outcome-Based Payment Arrangement

OBJECTIVE

This research assesses the impact of an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) linking complete remission (CR) to survival as a means of maintaining cost-effectiveness for a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used to model the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab in ALL from the Australian healthcare system perspective. A decision tree modeled different OBAs by funneling patients into a series of PSMs based on response. Outcomes were informed by individual patient data, while costs followed Australian treatment practices. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined to calculate a single incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in US dollars (2022) at a discount rate of 5% on costs and outcomes.

RESULTS

For the base case, incremental costs and benefit were $379,595 and 4.27 QALYs, giving an ICER of $88,979. The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate ($57,660-$75,081), "cure point" ($62,718-$116,206) and extrapolation method ($76,018-$94,049). OBAs had a modest effect on the ICER when response rates varied. A responder-only payment was the most effective arrangement for maintaining the ICER ($88,249-$89,434), although this option was associated with the greatest financial uncertainty. A split payment arrangement (payment on infusion followed by payment on response) reduced variability in the ICER ($82,650-$99,154) compared with a single, upfront payment ($77,599-$107,273).

CONCLUSION

OBAs had a modest impact on reducing cost-effectiveness uncertainty. The value of OBAs should be weighed against the additional resources needed to administer such arrangements, and importantly overall cost to government.

Introduction of managed entry agreements in Korea: Problem, policy, and politics

Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.

CMS Coverage With Evidence Development-Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

This Viewpoint describes the recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirement of coverage with evidence development for aducanumab and other Alzheimer disease drugs and considers how this policy tool could be improved.

Implementing Risk-Sharing Arrangements for Innovative Medicines: The Experience in Catalonia (Spain)

OBJECTIVES

Publications assessing health and economic outcomes of risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) are limited. Better knowledge of these outcomes would shed light on the pertinence of such arrangements, informing design improvements for the future. The aim of the study is to describe the different types of RSAs implemented in Catalonia and their health and economic outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective descriptive analysis of RSAs implemented from January 2016 to December 2019 in the Catalan Health Service, CatSalut. Individual RSAs were reviewed and categorized according to standard RSA guidelines. Relevant health and economic outcomes pertaining to the RSAs were analyzed using aggregate data recorded in Catalan central registries.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RSAs were implemented over the study period (10 of which are still ongoing). A total of 8 consisted of performance-linked reimbursements (PLRs) and 7 of cost-sharing arrangements (CSAs). The arrangements were implemented in the oncohematology (n = 11), rare disease (n = 3), and neurology (n = 1) areas. A total of 951 patients were included in PLR and 73% achieved the target health outcomes. Total medication costs were €9 295 755 of which 11% were refunded to CatSalut. CSAs involved 2066 patients and resulted in overall refunds of €1 349 564 (2.61%) for CatSalut.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PLRs and CSAs were used to manage the different uncertainties related to accessing innovative medicines in Catalonia. The data generated provide relevant information to inform decision-making, allowing an adaptation of the initial recommendation for use and access. Additional efforts are required to increase the RSA assessments and their publication.

Resilient managed competition during pandemics: lessons from the Italian experience during COVID-19

In the last decades, several European health systems have abandoned their vertically integrated health care in favour of some form of managed competition (MC), either in a centralised or decentralised format. However, during a pandemic, MC may put health systems under additional strain as they are designed to follow some form of 'organisational self-interest', and hence face reduced incentives for both provider coordination (e.g. temporary hospital close down, change in the case-mix), and information sharing. We illustrate our argument using evidence for the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak in Italy during March and April 2020, which calls for the development of 'coordination mechanisms' at times of a health emergency.

Faciliating More Efficient Negotiations for Innovative Therapies: A Value-Based Negotiation Framework

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual "value-based negotiation framework" with corresponding application tools.

METHODS

The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input.

RESULTS

The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

The Challenges of Outcomes-Based Contract Implementation for Medicines in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to outline the challenges of implementing outcomes-based contracts (OBCs) in Europe.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, building on the searches of a previous systematic review and updating them for December 2017 until May 2021. The combined results were screened, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All identified studies published in the English language that described specific OBC schemes for medicines in European countries were included. Insights into the challenges of OBCs were extracted and analysed to develop a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Ten articles from the previous systematic review matched our inclusion criteria, along with 14 articles from electronic searches. Analysis of these 24 articles and classification of the challenges revealed that there are multiple barriers that must be overcome if OBCs that benefit all stakeholders are going to be adopted widely across Europe. These challenges were grouped according to five key themes: negotiation framework; outcomes; data; administration and implementation; and laws and regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

If the promise of OBCs is to be fully realised in Europe, there remain major challenges that need to be overcome by all stakeholders working in partnership. The overlapping and interconnected nature of these challenges highlights the complexity of OBC arrangements.

How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence

BACKGROUND

Various forms of value-based pricing policies for new medicines have recently been introduced in OECD countries. While these initiatives are expected to have a positive impact on societal outcomes such as availability, affordability and value for money, scientific evidence on this impact is scarce due to confidential agreements.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the impact of value-based policy interventions in price negotiations on patient benefit in an experimental setting.

METHODS

An online experiment was conducted (n = 269). Participants were randomly assigned into the active role of either a buyer or seller in two intervention groups (cost-benefit, risk-sharing) and one control group. Decisions had real monetary consequences on other participants and through donations to a patient association.

RESULTS

Patient access, benefit and value for money were higher in the cost-benefit group than in the risk-sharing group. An available alternative to the agreement led to higher price offers. This effect was weaker in the cost-benefit group.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of price negotiations on patient benefit depend on the alternatives available for failed or delayed negotiations. A shared but voluntary valuation framework might increase patient access, benefit, and value for money. The cost containment effect of risk-sharing agreements may be offset by the negative impact on overall patient benefit. Further development of the approach could provide support for policy design of pharmaceutical pricing regulations.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and diagnostics in the United States: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Performance-based risksharing arrangements (PBRSAs) have continued to emerge and evolve over the last 2 decades. To date, most of the attention and available literature have focused on pharmaceuticals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status and trends regarding the use of PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices using the University of Washington Performance Based Risk Sharing Database. We augmented the review using PubMed, Google, and payer and industry websites. Key words and phrases such as outcomes-based, value-based, coverage with evidence development, performance-based, and risk-sharing were used in combination with device or diagnostic. To characterize arrangements in terms of product and market attributes, we extracted data for each product, including arrangement descriptions, arrangement type, year, therapeutic area, product manufacturer, payer, and product type. Arrangements were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two arrangements were identified between the years 2001 and 2019, with 30 (57.7%) for devices and 22 (42.3%) for diagnostic tests. Among these, 23 (44.2%) were coverage with evidence development (CED), only in research; 17 (32.7%) were performance-linked reimbursement (PLR); and 12 (23.1%) were CED, only with research. The majority of arrangements for devices were developed in cardiology (12, 40%), endocrinology (4, 13.3%), and radiology (3, 10%). Most of arrangements for identified diagnostic tests were in oncology (17, 77.3%). Over time, there has been a trend towards increasing adoption of PLR and CED, only with research, especially since 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to comprehensively review PBRSA arrangements for diagnostics and devices in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that there is substantial PBRSA activity for devices and diagnostics, and the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and variety. These arrangements have implications for managed care into the future as the health care system shifts towards value-based care and value-based pricing to contain cost for payers and ensure value in the patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

A Review of the Evidence on Attitudes, Perceived Impacts and Motivational Factors for European Member State Collaboration for Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines: Time for the EEA Member States to Apply Their Experience and Expertise in Evidence-Based Decision Making to Their Current Pharmaceutical Policy Challenges

In 2018/2019 there were a number of initiatives for collaboration between Member States in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. In view of the perceived benefits from collaboration, the experiences and challenges of these collaborative initiatives and the possible implications of the proposed legislation, a study of the evidence on attitudes, perceived impacts and the motivational factors towards European Member State collaboration regarding the pricing and reimbursement of medicines was conducted. This study adopted an evidence-based management approach by Barends and Rousseau. The main findings showed that Member States differed in their motivation for collaboration for different pharmaceutical activities. Member States favoured voluntary co-operation for all activities of pricing and reimbursement except for relative effectiveness assessments where Member State authorities had divergent attitudes and prioritised activities related to the sustainability of their healthcare systems and access to medicines. Contrastingly pharmaceutical companies strongly favoured mandatory cooperation for evaluation. Member States motivation for collaboration was highly dependent on the purpose, political will, implementation climate and cultural factors. Currently, with the experiences of ongoing collaborations, following the progress of the discussion at Council, and with a number of inititatives for new pharmaceutical strategy and policy, it is proposed that Member States use their trust, expertise and knowledge of application of evidence-based decision making for pricing and reimbursement of medicines and apply it to decide the future model for Member State collaboration. The applicability of principles of evidence-based management to pharmaceutical policy can be used as a starting point.

Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges

OBJECTIVES

Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization.

METHODS

We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion.

CONCLUSIONS

CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers' perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.

State of the ART? Two New Tools for Risk Communication in Health Technology Assessments

PURPOSE

Outcomes of health technology assessments (HTA) are uncertain, and decision-making is associated with a risk. This risk, consisting of the probability of making a wrong decision and its impact, is rarely considered in HTA. This hampers transparent and consistent risk assessment and management. The aim of this study was to develop risk communication tools in the context of health technology decision-making under uncertainty.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of tools for uncertainty and risk communication within HTA using citation pearl-growing. We developed two tools, drawing on existing publications on risk and uncertainty communication for inspiration. Individual semi-structured interviews with HTA stakeholders were performed to identify potential improvements in usefulness, user-friendliness, and information adequacy. Tools were amended and further evaluated in a real-world HTA and workshop with HTA stakeholders.

RESULTS

The identified risk communication tools did not include non-quantified uncertainties, and did not link to risk management strategies. We developed two tools: the Assessment of Risk Table (ART), for a summary of quantified and non-quantified uncertainties and the resulting risk assessment, and the Appraisal of Risk Chart (ARCH), for linking net benefit and risk outcomes to appropriate risk management strategies. Stakeholders appreciated the usefulness of the tools. They also highlighted that more information on local policy options was required for optimal risk management use, and HTA processes may need adapting.

CONCLUSION

The risk communication tools presented here can help assess risk, facilitate communication between analysts and decision-makers, and guide the appropriate use of available risk management strategies.

How can we improve patients' access to new drugs under uncertainties? : South Korea's experience with risk sharing arrangements

BACKGROUND

New drugs including cancer drugs and orphan drugs are becoming increasingly more expensive. Risk sharing arrangements (RSAs) could manage the risk based on both financial impact and the health outcome of new drugs if reimbursed. To improve patients' access to new drugs under uncertainties, many developed countries have adopted RSAs. In this study, we aimed to understand the effects of RSAs in South Korea on patients' access.

METHODS

We reviewed current status of RSA drugs in South Korea. The number of appraisals and time gap between market approval and reimbursement per RSA drug were considered to quantify improvement of patients' access as they showed how rapidly decisions on reimbursement of RSA drugs were derived. Then, we applied a comparative analysis to determine whether the RSA drugs in South Korea were reimbursed in the UK, Italy, and Australia. Most data for this study were obtained from websites of the governmental department/agencies responsible for appraisal of drug reimbursement in each country. And literatures related to RSAs were investigated as well.

RESULTS

The eligibility for Korean RSAs had two key components - drugs for cancer and rare diseases and not having other alternative treatments. As of the first half of 2019, there were 39 RSA drugs reimbursed in South Korea, the majority of which were financial-based schemes. Refund and expenditure cap were the representative types (89.7%). After introduction of RSAs, the time gap and number of appraisals were decreased. Based on the indications of RSA drugs, the level of drug coverage in South Korea was found lower than Italy, similar to the UK, and higher than Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

RSAs in South Korea significantly enhanced patients' access to new drugs and led to the alleviation of patients' out-of-pocket expenses. The drug coverage of South Korea had a level comparable to that of other countries. This study provides implications for countries that have a dual mission of containing pharmaceutical expenditure and improving access to new drugs.

Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs.

METHODS

To investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges.

RESULTS

The OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans.

CONCLUSIONS

These case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.

Economic Impact of Coverage Expansion for Non-invasive Prenatal Testing Through a Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Agreement

BACKGROUND

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care expanded coverage for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to include all pregnant, single-gestation women aged < 35 years, through a performance-based risk-sharing (PBRS) agreement with Illumina to offset costs from coverage expansion. NIPT analyzes cell-free DNA fragments from a maternal blood sample to screen for fetal aneuploidies and is considered a more accurate screening method than conventional serum biochemical screening and nuchal translucency ultrasound-based approaches.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of NIPT coverage expansion on prenatal screening strategies and payer expenditures.

METHODS

This was a real-world comparison of utilization and expenditures of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing in pregnant women aged < 35 years pre- (1 March 2016-28 February 2018) and post- (1 March 2018-30 September 2019) coverage expansion. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare changes in utilization of conventional and NIPT-based prenatal screening methods. Change in per member per month (PMPM) expenditures in $US year 2020 were assessed post-coverage expansion using a budget impact model.

RESULTS

A total of 5041 and 4109 distinct pregnancies were identified in pre- and post-coverage expansion periods, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation maternal age was consistent between pre- and post-coverage expansion periods (30.35 ± 3.35 and 30.33 ± 3.28, respectively). Screening orders for conventional methods decreased, with an adjusted IRR in the post-expansion period of 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.90) times the rate in the pre-expansion period; orders for NIPT increased, with an adjusted IRR in the post-expansion period of 1.41 (95% CI 1.32-1.51) times the rate in the pre-expansion period. Invasive diagnostic testing was low at baseline (1.0%) and did not change post-coverage expansion. The change in PMPM is estimated at $US0.026 post-coverage expansion.

CONCLUSION

The PBRS agreement to expand NIPT coverage for women aged < 35 years was associated with an increase in NIPT utilization, decreases in conventional screening methods, and a modest increase in PMPM expenditures.

A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis

Value-of-information analysis (VOI) is a decision-theoretic approach that is used to inform reimbursement decisions, optimise trial design and set research priorities. The application of VOI analysis for informing policy decisions in practice has been limited due, in part, to the perceived complexity associated with the calculation of VOI measures. Recent efforts have resulted in the development of efficient methods to estimate VOI measures and the development of user-friendly web-based tools to facilitate VOI calculations. We review the existing web-based tools including Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information (SAVI), the web interface to the BCEA (Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) R package (BCEAweb), Rapid Assessment of Need for Evidence (RANE), and Value of Information for Cardiovascular Trials and Other Comparative Research (VICTOR). We describe what each tool is designed to do, the inputs they require, and the outputs they produce. Finally, we discuss how tools for VOI calculations might be improved in the future to facilitate the use of VOI analysis in practice.

Characterization of the Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Arrangement Process in Catalonia

Pharmaceutical risk-sharing arrangements have emerged as a reasonable tool to promote sustainable access to innovative medicines with uncertain clinical evidence and/or economic impact from the payer perspective. These funding mechanisms pose an alternative option to the traditional fixed-price methods and are intended to align the price of medication with the value delivered in treating patients, balancing clinical need with affordability in the face of increasing therapeutic innovation and ever-tight budgets. The Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) has set up a systematic, traceable, and transparent methodology for the design and implementation of risk-sharing arrangements and 15 of such access schemes have been successfully implemented until December 2019. Our experience has acknowledged the need for a robust study design, appropriate financial, technical, and administrative resources, and strong stakeholder commitment and communication as critical to the success of risk-sharing arrangements. While the experience in Catalonia has been positive and has served to highlight the potential of such schemes in tackling public health policy concerns, this exchange can often be undermined by the lack of transparency surrounding risk-sharing arrangements and the fact that the literature related to their methodology, implementation, and impact is scarce. Further studies should be conducted and shared to address this obstacle.

Value-based drug price schemes: a welfare analysis

Objectives

The market for innovative drugs is characterized by high levels of regulation, whose impact on the market is not neutral. On the one hand, strict regulation may in fact adversely affect incentives to develop new and better products; on the other hand, high prices may drive an unsustainable increase in healthcare costs. This trade-off is particularly important in Europe, where about 75% of drugs costs are financed by the public sector.

Methods

We develop a simple model that allows to compare the impact of different listing and pricing strategies on the social value of innovative drugs, the consumer surplus and the expected profit of the industry.

Key findings

Uncertainty in the expected price, as well as other forms of access regulation, may lead to a fairer division of the social value between patients and the industry, at the cost of leaving some of the potential value of the drug unexploited.

Conclusions

The regulator may improve value for money if it is prepared either to restrict access to the drug or to reduce the expected price. In both cases, the number of groups of patients treated may be different from the social optimum.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

The economics of alternative payment models for pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals are priced uniformly by convention, but vary in their degree of effectiveness for different disease indications. As more high-cost therapies have launched, the demand for alternative payment models (APMs) has been increasing in many advanced markets, despite their well-documented limitations and challenges to implementation. Among policy justifications for such contracts is the maximization of value given scarce resources. We show that while uniform pricing rules can handle variable effectiveness in efficient markets, market inefficiencies of other kinds create a role for different value-based pricing structures. We first present a stylized theoretical model of efficient interaction among drug manufacturers, payers, and beneficiaries. In this stylized setting, uniform pricing works well, even when treatment effects are variable. We then use this framework to define market failures that result in obstacles to uniform pricing. The market failures we identify include: (1) uncertainty of patient distribution, (2) asymmetric beliefs, (3) agency imperfection by payer, (4) agency imperfection by provider, and (5) patient behavior and treatment adherence. We then apply our insights to real-world examples of alternative payment models, and highlight challenges related to contract implementation.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Building a trusted framework for uncertainty assessment in rare diseases: suggestions for improvement (Response to "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases")

The aim of this letter to the editor is to provide a comprehensive summary of uncertainty assessment in Health Technology Assessment, with a focus on transferability to the setting of rare diseases. The authors of "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases" presented recommendations for reducing uncertainty in rare diseases. Their article is of great importance but unfortunately suffers from a lack of references to the wider uncertainty in Health Technology Assessment and research prioritisation literature and consequently fails to provide a trusted framework for decision-making in rare diseases. In this letter to the editor we critique the authors' tool and provide pointers as to how their proposal can be strengthened. We present references to the literature, including our own tool for uncertainty assessment (TRUST; unrelated to the authors' research), apply TRUST to two assessments of orphan drugs in rare diseases and provide a broader perspective on uncertainty and risk management in rare diseases, including a detailed research agenda.

Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies

Background: The challenging market access of high-cost one-time curative therapies has inspired the development of alternative reimbursement structures, such as outcome-based spread payments, to mitigate their unaffordability and answer remaining uncertainties. This study aimed to provide a broad overview of barriers and possible opportunities for the practical implementation of outcome-based spread payments for the reimbursement of one-shot therapies in European healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed investigating published literature and publicly available documents to identify barriers and implementation opportunities for both spreading payments and for implementing outcome-based agreements. Data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis by extracting data with a reporting template. Results: A total of 1,503 publications were screened and 174 were included. Main identified barriers for the implementation of spread payments are reaching an agreement on financial terms while considering 12-months budget cycles and the possible violation of corresponding international accounting rules. Furthermore, outcome correction of payments is currently hindered by the need for additional data collection, the lack of clear governance structures and the resulting administrative burden and cost. The use of spread payments adjusted by population- or individual-level data collected within automated registries and overseen by a governance committee and external advisory board may alleviate several barriers and may support the reimbursement of highly innovative therapies. Conclusion: High-cost advanced therapy medicinal products pose a substantial affordability challenge on healthcare systems worldwide. Outcome-based spread payments may mitigate the initial budget impact and alleviate existing uncertainties; however, their effective implementation still faces several barriers and will be facilitated by realizing the required organizational changes.

Impact of a risk-sharing agreement in rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Risk-sharing agreements(RSA) allow decision-makers to manage the uncertainty associated with effectiveness and costs of treatments. Our objective was to estimate the economic impact of RSA implementation on treatment of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis(RA) with certolizumab pegol(CZP) and assess the potential impact of alternative RSA.

METHODS

Under original RSA, treatment with CZP was reimbursed when the response was optimal (DAS28 score <3.2) or satisfactory (DAS28 score ≥3.2 and reduction from baseline ≥1.2) at 12 weeks. Alternative RSA would additionally include a 50 % reimbursement for moderate responders(DAS28 score >3.2 and ≤5.1, and reduction from baseline between 0.6 and 1.2). We estimated average savings per patient for hospital's pharmacy service(HPS) at 12 weeks, taking into account the pharmacological cost of CZP. Uncertainty associated with effectiveness of CZP was assessed through 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of treatment, 57.8 % (n = 52) and 22.2 %(n = 20) of patients had optimal and satisfactory responses, respectively, and average disease activity improved by 1.77 points. Average savings for HPS amounted to 876.9€ and 706.4€ per patient under original and alternative RSA, respectively. Savings in simulated cohort reached 846.2€ and 681.8€ per patient, respectively, leading to estimated net savings for HPS of 846,209€ and 681,790€, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RSA implementation on patients with RA treated with CZP has generated savings and improved efficiency within HPS.

Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis

The reimbursement of expensive, innovative therapies poses a challenge to healthcare systems. This study investigated the feasibility of managed entry agreements (MEAs) for innovative therapies in different settings and combinations. First, a systematic literature review included studies describing used or conceptual agreements between payers and manufacturers (i.e., MEAs). Identical and similar MEAs were clustered and data were extracted on their benefits and limitations. A feasibility assessment was performed for each individual MEA based on how it could be applied (financial/outcome-based), on what level (individual patients/target population), in which payment setting (centralized pricing and reimbursement authority yes/no), for what type of therapies (one-time/chronic), within what payment structures, and whether combinations with other MEAs were feasible. The literature search ultimately included 82 papers describing 117 MEAs. After clustering, 15 unique MEAs remained, each describing one or multiple similar agreements. Four of those entailed payment structures, while eleven entailed agreements between payers and manufacturers regarding price, usage, and/or evidence generation. The feasibility assessment indicated that most agreements could be applied throughout the different settings that were assessed and could be applied in different payment structures and in combination with multiple other agreements. The potential to combine multiple agreements leads to a multitude of different reimbursement mechanisms that may manage the price, usage, payment structure, and additional conditions for an innovative therapy. This overview of the feasibility of combinations of MEAs can help decision-makers construct a reimbursement mechanism most suited to their preferences, the type of therapy under evaluation, and the applicable healthcare system.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

The impact of managed entry agreements on pharmaceutical prices

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) have been used for several years, with the aim of curbing the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure and enhancing patient access to innovation. Yet, much remains to be understood about their economic implications. This paper studies the impact of MEAs on list prices, that is, prices before the deduction of any discount. Using a theoretical model, we show that, under most price setting regimes, the introduction of an MEA leads to a higher list price. This is confirmed by our empirical analysis of a sample of 156 medicines in six countries, providing a conservative estimate of the increase in price due to the MEA of 5.9%. A relevant policy implication is that payers may overestimate the financial gains that can be achieved through this  tool.

Use of Real-World Evidence in US Payer Coverage Decision-Making for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Tests: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions

OBJECTIVES

Given the potential of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform understanding of the risk-benefit profile of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, we undertook a study to describe the current landscape of whether and how payers use RWE as part of their coverage decision making and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

METHODS

We performed a scoping literature review of existing RWE evidentiary frameworks for evaluating new technologies and identified barriers to clinical integration and evidence gaps for NGS. We synthesized findings as potential solutions for improving the relevance and utility of RWE for payer decision-making.

RESULTS

Payers require evidence of clinical utility to inform coverage decisions, yet we found a relatively small number of published RWE studies, and these are predominately focused on oncology, pharmacogenomics, and perinatal/pediatric testing. We identified 3 categories of innovation that may help address the current undersupply of RWE studies for NGS: (1) increasing use of RWE to inform outcomes-based contracting for new technologies, (2) precision medicine initiatives that integrate clinical and genomic data and enable data sharing, and (3) Food and Drug Administration reforms to encourage the use of RWE. Potential solutions include development of data and evidence review standards, payer engagement in RWE study design, use of incentives and partnerships to lower the barriers to RWE generation, education of payers and providers concerning the use of RWE and NGS, and frameworks for conducting outcomes-based contracting for NGS.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide numerous suggestions to overcome the data, methodologic, infrastructure, and policy challenges constraining greater integration of RWE in assessments of NGS.

Mapping of Current Obstacles for Rationalizing Use of Medicines (CORUM) in Europe: Current Situation and Potential Solutions

Introduction

There are increasing concerns regarding the inappropriate use of medicines with expenditure continuing to grow driven by increasing sales in oncology and orphan diseases, enhanced by their emotive nature. As a result, even high income countries are struggling to fund new premium priced medicines. These concerns have resulted in initiatives to better manage the entry of new medicines and enhance the rational use of medicines (RUM). However, there is a need to ascertain the current situation. We sought to address this by developing the Current Obstacles for Rationalizing Use of Medicines in Europe (CORUM) mapping tool to qualitatively investigate the current situation and provide analysis of current views on RUM and interventions among key European payers and their advisers. The findings will be used to provide future guidance.

Methodology

Descriptive study exploring and identifying perceived gaps to achieving optimal RUM. The CORUM tool was based on the WHO 12 key interventions to promote RUM.

Results

62 participants took part with most respondents believing their country could improve RUM capacity. This included educational initiatives on the use of clinical guidelines (90%) and the inclusion of problem-based pharmacotherapy in undergraduate curricula and for Continued Professional Development. Key challenges included a lack of regular updates of guidelines, exacerbated by limited funding and a lack of follow-up to monitor adherence to agreed guidelines. RUM could also be enhanced by the development of regional formularies as well as implementing Drug and Therapeutic Committees where these are currently limited. There also needs to be greater co-ordination between RUM and Health Technology Assessment activities, with countries learning from each other.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need to improve RUM through improved educational and other activities among European countries, with countries learning from each other. This will involve addressing current challenges and we will be following this up.

Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab

The potential benefits of early patient access to new medicines in areas of high unmet medical need are recognised, but uncertainties concerning effectiveness, safety and added value when new medicines are authorised, and subsequently funded based on initial preliminary data only, have important implications. In 2016 olaratumab received accelerated conditional approval from both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma, based on the claims of a substantial reduction in the risk of death with an 11.8-month improvement in median overall survival in a phase II trial in combination with doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin alone. The failure to confirm these benefits in the post-authorisation pivotal trial has highlighted key concerns regarding early access and conditional approvals for new medicines. Concerns include potentially considerable clinical and economic costs, so that patients may have received suboptimal treatment and any money spent has foregone the opportunity to improve access to effective treatments. As a result, it seems reasonable to reconsider current marketing authorisation models and approaches. Potential pathways forward include closer collaboration between regulators, pharmaceutical companies and payers to enhance the generation of rapid and comparative confirmatory trials in a safe and fair manner, with minimal patient exposure as required to achieve robust evidence. Additionally, it may be time to review early access systems, and to explore new avenues regarding who should pay or part pay for new treatments whilst information is being collected as part of any obligations for conditional marketing authorisation. Greater co-operation between countries regarding the collection of data in routine clinical care, and further research on post-marketing data analysis and interpretation, may also contribute to improved appraisal and continued access to new innovative cancer treatments.

Value-Based Pharmaceutical Contracts: Value for Whom?

Value-based pharmaceutical contracts (VBPCs) are performance-based reimbursement agreements between healthcare payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in which the price, amount, or nature of reimbursement is tied to value-based outcomes. VBPCs are often complex, and the nature of who benefits and in what ways can be unclear. We discuss how VBPCs compare with value-based payer-provider arrangements in terms of performance-based reimbursements and alignment of incentives. In addition, we examine how VBPCs can affect costs, clinical outcomes, and access to medications. Because these contracts are unlikely to reduce costs in isolation, we recommend taking a patient-centered approach when developing VBPCs and tying VBPCs to more overarching payer drug cost reduction strategies.

The Use of Risk-Sharing Contracts in Healthcare: Theoretical and Empirical Assessments

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the literature on risk-sharing agreements, including conceptual, theoretical and empirical (number of agreements and their achievements) perspectives, and stakeholders'  perceptions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE from 2000 to April 2019, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, and completed it with a manual search of other publications (mainly grey literature). The search was restricted to publications with English abstracts; the initial identification of articles was restricted to the title, abstract and key words fields. The geographical scope was not restricted.

RESULTS

Over 20 studies proposed different taxonomies of risk-sharing contracts, which can be summarised as financial and paying-for-performance agreements. Theoretical studies modelling the incentives to implement risk-sharing agreements are scarce; they addressed different types of contracts and regulatory contexts, characterizing the drug prices and the optimal strategies of the involved agents. Empirical studies describing specific agreements are abundant and referred to different geographical contexts; however, few articles showed the economic results and assessed the value of such contracts. Stakeholders' perceptions of risk-sharing contracting were favourable, but little is known about the economic and clinical advantages of specific agreements. Whether risk-sharing contracts have yielded the desired results for healthcare systems remains uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Risk-sharing contracts are increasingly used, although the lack of transparency and aggregated registries makes it difficult to learn from these experiences and assess their impact on healthcare systems.

An Ethical Analysis of Coverage With Evidence Development

Sometimes a government or other payer is called on to fund a new health technology even when the evidence leaves a lot of uncertainty. One option is for the payer to provisionally fund the technology and reduce uncertainty by developing evidence. This is called coverage with evidence development (CED). Only-in-research CED, when the payer funds the technology only for patients who participate in the evidence development, raises the sharpest ethical questions. Is the patient coerced or induced into participating? If so, under what circumstances, if any, is this ethically justified? Building on work by Miller and Pearson, we argue that patients have a right to funding for a technology only when the payer can be confident that the technology provides reasonable value for money. Technologies are candidates for CED precisely because serious questions remain about value for money, and therefore patients have no right to technologies under a CED arrangement. This is why CED induces rather than coerces. The separate question of whether the inducement is ethically justified remains. We argue that CED does pose risks to patients, and the worse these risks are, the harder it is to justify the inducement. Finally, we propose conditions under which the inducement could be ethically justified and means of avoiding inducement altogether. We draw on the Australian context, and so our conclusions apply most directly to comparable contexts, where the payer is a government that provides universal coverage with a regard for cost-effectiveness that is prominent and fairly clearly defined.