Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea

Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations.

METHODS

A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC's Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)-indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation.

RESULTS

The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients' access to medicines.

Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia

Publicly funded healthcare systems, including those in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia, often use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform drug reimbursement decision-making, based on dossiers submitted by manufacturers, and HTA agencies issue publicly available reports to support funding recommendations. However, the level of information reported by HTA agencies in these reports may vary. To provide insights on this issue, we describe and assess the reporting of economic methods in recent oncology HTA recommendations from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Publicly available HTA recommendations and reports for oncology drugs issued by CADTH over a 2-year period, 2019-2020, were identified and compared with the corresponding HTA documents from NICE and the PBAC. Reporting of key model characteristics and attributes, survival analysis methods, methodological criticisms, and re-assessment of the economic results were characterized using descriptive statistics. Dichotomous differences in the methodological criticisms observed between the three agencies were assessed using Cochran's Q tests and substantiated using pairwise McNemar tests. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the dichotomous differences in the reporting of methods and explore the potential relationships between categorical variables, where appropriate. HTAs published by CADTH, NICE, and the PBAC consistently reported a broad spectrum of descriptive information on the economic models submitted by manufacturers. While common economic evaluation attributes were well-reported across the three HTA agencies, significant differences in the reporting of survival analysis methods and methodological criticisms were observed. NICE consistently reported more comprehensive information, compared to either CADTH or PBAC. Despite these differences, broadly similar recommendation rates were observed between CADTH and NICE. The PBAC was found to be more restrictive. Based on our 2-year sample of oncology, the HTAs published by CADTH matched with the corresponding HTAs from NICE and PBAC; we observed important variations in the reporting of economic evidence, especially technical aspects, such as survival analysis, across the three agencies. In addition to guidelines for HTA submissions by manufacturers, the community of HTA agencies should also have common standards for reporting the results of their assessments, though the information and opinions reported may differ.

Are Recently Evaluated Drugs More Likely to Receive Positive Reimbursement Recommendations in South Korea? 11-year Experience of the South Korean Positive List System

PURPOSE

The South Korean government in 2014 introduced various policies to enhance accessibility of pharmaceuticals. This study sought to examine whether positive reimbursement recommendations of pharmaceuticals have increased since 2014.

METHODS

Industry submissions evaluated from January 2007 to December 2018 were identified, and characteristics relevant to reimbursement recommendations were extracted. Logistic regression analyses with robust SEs were used to quantify the likelihood of positive recommendations for pharmaceuticals, after controlling for relevant factors influencing the recommendations.

FINDINGS

During the study period, 355 (72.9%) of 487 submissions were positively recommended; the drugs evaluated after 2014 (77.8%) were significantly more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations than the drugs evaluated before 2014 (69.5%). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, several factors (labeled a noncancer drug, priced less than alternatives, considered clinically superior, and having budget impact >10 billion South Korean won) were significantly associated with positive recommendations (P < 0.05). When considering interaction effects between evaluation year and other variables, only the interaction between comparative clinical benefit and evaluation year was significant. Specifically, clinically noninferior drugs evaluated after 2014 had 2.85 times the odds of receiving positive recommendations compared with the clinically noninferior drugs evaluated earlier.

IMPLICATIONS

Recently evaluated drugs are more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations, especially those drugs whose comparative clinical benefits are noninferior.

Changes in prescription pattern, pharmaceutical expenditure and quality of care after introduction of reimbursement restriction in diabetes in Korea

Background

To ensure effective prescription practices and reduce diabetes-related pharmaceutical expenditures, Korea adopted a clinical practice guideline for the reimbursement system. Health care providers cannot receive reimbursement from National Health Insurance(NHI) unless it is for an appropriate prescription under the predefined clinical condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate prescription patterns in oral hypoglycemic agents, costs and effects on patient care since the introduction of the diabetes reimbursement restriction.

Methods

We used claim data from 2008 to 2013, which included 26 315 diabetes patients and 9907 hospitals. An interrupted time series study design using generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate changes in patterns of single and combination therapy, brand name drug prescriptions, cost and hospital admission following the reimbursement restriction.

Results

Following reimbursement restriction initiation, we found a statistically significant decrease in the average prescription rate of brand name drugs (-6.2%), whereas single therapy prescription increased (9.9%). There was also a reduction in trend change in the monthly prescription rate for combination therapy (-1.7%) and brand name drugs (-0.8%). For single therapy, the trend change in prescription rate increased after the intervention (0.8%). A reduction of trend change in pharmaceutical costs (-0.3%) was observed. However, we did not find a significant change in hospital admission for diabetes.

Conclusions

Reimbursement restriction affects both pharmaceutical costs and physicians' decisions to prescribe oral hypoglycemic agents. We did not observe a significant reduction in quality of care following the intervention. Collectively, these findings indicate that reimbursement restriction has improved effective drug utilization and decreased health expenditures.

Does the Patent Linkage System Prolong Effective Market Exclusivity? Recent Evidence From the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in Korea

This study evaluated the effect of the patent linkage system, fully introduced by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 2015, on patent challenges and the effective market exclusivity of new medicines in Korea. We used pharmaceutical approval data and pharmaceutical litigation data to detect new medicines and their counterparts, to collect patent challenges against new medicines, and to calculate effective market exclusivity for new medicines. Then, a nonparametric event history model was applied to statistically explain the duration of the market exclusivity of new medicines. Between 2007 and 2011, a total of 94 new medicines, consisting of 82 new chemical entities and 12 new biologics, were approved. The patent linkage system encouraged patent litigations to occur sooner, with a race to challenge the patents by various generic applicants. However, it was difficult to conclude that patent challenges had a significant impact on the prolongation of effective market exclusivity. The patent linkage system had a neutral effect on the effective market exclusivity of new medicines and encouraged patent challenges without abbreviating effective market exclusivity. In addition, this study highlights an important issue regarding biologics that has not been the subject of market competition, even for patent challenges.

Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more 'innovation-friendly' than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?

Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Both agencies may be considered as exemplars for the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine and the logic of cost-effectiveness, respectively. Methods: We extracted data from all publically available G-BA appraisals until April 2015, as well as all NICE single technology appraisals completed during this period. We compared HTA results for matched condition-intervention pairs by G-BA and NICE, and explored other factors including therapeutic area, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results: NICE issued guidance for 88 technologies (125 subgroups) and recommended 67/88 technologies (99/125 subgroups). G-BA completed 105 appraisals (226 subgroups) and determined additional benefit for 64/105 appraisals (90/226 subgroups). We identified 37 matched pairs; for 24/37 drugs, evaluations diverged. NICE recommended 78% (29/37) of technologies appraised, whereas G-BA confirmed additional benefit for 57% (21/37) only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: NICE evaluates new drugs more favorably than G-BA. However, our analysis suggests differences by therapeutic area. Results indicate that different methods are associated with systematic differences in HTA outcomes.

Role of Health Technology Assessment in Drug Policies: Korea

South Korea is the first Asian country to mandate the submission of pharmacoeconomic data for reimbursement decision making. For a new drug to be listed, it must demonstrate its value in terms of comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness. The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) judges the submitted drug's value and decides whether its coverage is appropriate on the basis of the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Coverage Assessment Committee. Once the drug has been accepted by HIRA, the National Health Insurance Service and the sponsoring company negotiate the price and expected sales volume. Even if HIRA acknowledges the value of the drug, it cannot be listed if the negotiation fails. In the off-patent market, generic and original branded drugs are treated equally in terms of pricing. Once generics enter the market, both drug prices should be lowered to 53.55% or less of the on-patent price. Since the current system was implemented, concerns have been raised about a decline in the accessibility of new drugs, especially for high-priced drugs used to treat serious diseases. In 2013, several measures had been introduced aimed at improving the accessibility of these drugs. A risk-sharing scheme and an increase in the maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio were subsequently initiated. Although these schemes have been successful in improving access to high-priced drugs, they are often criticized for reducing transparency in pricing. Finding a balance between accessibility and efficiency is still a challenge in Korea.

Patient access to medicines in two countries with similar health systems and differing medicines policies: Implications from a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Countries with similar health systems but different medicines policies might result in substantial medicines usage differences and resultant outcomes. The literature is sparse in this area.

OBJECTIVE

To review pharmaceutical policy research in New Zealand and Australia and discuss differences between the two countries and the impact these differences may have on subsequent medicine access.

METHODS

A review of the literature (2008-2016) was performed to identify relevant, peer-reviewed articles. Systematic searches were conducted across the six databases MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Direct, Springer Links, Scopus and Google Scholar. A further search of journals of high relevance was also conducted. Using content analysis, a narrative synthesis of pharmaceutical policy research influencing access to medicines in Australia and New Zealand was conducted. The results were critically assessed in the context of policy material available via grey literature from the respective countries.

RESULTS

Key elements regarding pharmaceutical policy were identified from the 35 research papers identified for this review. Through a content analysis, three broad categories of pharmaceutical policy were found, which potentially could influence patient access to medicines in each country; the national health system, pricing and reimbursement. Within these three categories, 9 subcategories were identified: national health policy, pharmacy system, marketing authorization and regulation, prescription to non-prescription medicine switch, orphan drug policies, generic medicine substitution, national pharmaceutical schedule and health technology assessment, patient co-payment and managed entry agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

This review systematically evaluated the current literature and identified key areas of difference in policy between Australia and NZ. Australia appears to cover and reimburse a greater number of medicines, while New Zealand achieves much lower prices for medicines than their Australian counterparts and has been more successful in controlling national pharmaceutical expenditure. Delays in patient access to new therapies in New Zealand have considerable implications for overall patient access to medicines; however, higher patient co-payments and relative pharmaceutical expenditure in Australia and its effect upon patient access to medicines must also be considered.

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017

BACKGROUND

Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value-clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility-but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach.

METHODS

Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011-2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations.

RESULTS

Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency.

The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions

CONTEXT

Policy makers and insurance companies decide on coverage of care by both calculating (cost-) effectiveness and assessing the necessity of coverage.

AIM

To investigate argumentations pertaining to necessity used in coverage decisions made by policy makers and insurance companies, as well as those argumentations used by patients, authors, the public and the media.

METHODS

This study is designed as a realist review, adhering to the RAMESES quality standards. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched and 98 articles were included that detailed necessity-based argumentations.

RESULTS

We identified twenty necessity-based argumentation types. Seven are only used to argue in favour of coverage, five solely for arguing against coverage, and eight are used to argue both ways. A positive decision appears to be facilitated when patients or the public set the decision on the agenda. Moreover, half the argumentation types are only used by patients, authors, the public and the media, whereas the other half is also used by policy makers and insurance companies. The latter group is more accepted and used in more different countries.

CONCLUSION

The majority of necessity-based argumentation types is used for either favouring or opposing coverage, and not for both. Patients, authors, the public and the media use a broader repertoire of argumentation types than policy makers and insurance companies.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Pharmaceutical Regulation in Canada and Australia

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a large regional trade agreement involving 12 countries. It was signed in principle in February 2016 but has not yet been ratified in any of the participating countries. The TPP provisions place a range of constraints on how governments regulate the pharmaceutical sector and set prices for medicines. This article presents a prospective policy analysis of the possible effects of the TPP on these two points in Canada and Australia. Five chapters of relevance to pharmaceutical policy are analyzed: chapters on Technical Barriers to Trade (Chapter 8), Intellectual Property (Chapter 18), Investment (Chapter 9), Dispute Resolution (Chapter 28), and an annex of the chapter on Transparency and Anti-Corruption (Chapter 26, Annex 26-A). The article concludes that the TPP could have profound effects on the criteria these countries use to decide on drug safety and effectiveness, how new drugs are approved (or not) for marketing, post-market surveillance and inspection, the listing of drugs on public formularies, and how individual drugs are priced in the future. Furthermore, the TPP, if ratified and enforced, will reduce future policy flexibility to address the increasing challenge of rising drug prices.

Provincial elections and timing of cancer drug funding

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised about the potential influence of political pressures on drug funding decisions. We evaluated the temporal relationship between cancer drug funding and provincial elections in 9 Canadian provinces.

METHODS

New indications for cancer drugs between January 2003 and December 2012 were identified, and the dates of official provincial funding dates and election dates between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2014 were retrieved. The probability of drug funding announcements in the 60-day period preceding a provincial election was evaluated using binomial probability distribution analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec) were available. During the period of interest, 69 new indications for 39 individual drugs were identified. Variation in the availability of funding dates was identified. At the time of data collection, 2 provinces did not have data available for all 69 indications. For the 9 provinces, the number of funded indications during the 60-day period preceding an election ranged from 0 to 3; however, no differences in the proportion of indications funded pre-election were identified. Additional analyses also failed to demonstrate any significant associations with the 90-day period before an election, or the 60- and 90-day periods after an election.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no clear temporal relationship between provincial election dates and funding decisions in this recent Canadian sample of new indications for cancer drugs.