Accessibility of cancer drugs in Switzerland: Time from approval to pricing decision between 2009 and 2018

Early access to medicines with added therapeutic value: Measuring and comparing time to medicines access in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain

The scientific breakthroughs over the past few decades have opened up new therapeutic possibilities, transforming the treatment of critical illnesses like cancer and rare diseases. However, delayed access to these innovations can lead to a loss of valuable life years for patients. The annual European medicines access times Monitor, launched by the French Statutory Health Insurance (CNAM) with the support of the French National Authority for Health (HAS), analysed time to patient access across five countries between 2017 and 2023 (England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) for a sample of 50 molecules that demonstrate therapeutic improvement. The results underscore the crucial role of Early Access Schemes-EAS in accelerating patient access to medicines. These schemes are particularly prevalent in countries where national reimbursement is contingent on Health Technology Assessment-HTA assessments and price negotiations-notably France, Italy, and Spain. These findings indicate that early access schemes, rather than being restricted to compassionate use for patients with no alternative treatment options, can also serve as a strategy to expedite access to essential therapies, particularly cancer drugs, prior to their formal reimbursement.

Health technology assessment of medicinal products in Greece: a 5-year (2018-2023) review of timelines and productivity

OBJECTIVES

To assess the health technology assessment (HTA) process in Greece from its establishment in 2018 until 2023 in terms of timeliness and productivity.

METHODS

Data were collected from the HTA Committee's database and other publicly available sources. The overall study timeframe was divided into three periods: (i) July 2018-January 2020, (ii) January 2020-July 2021, and (iii) July 2021-February 2023.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 1,157 applications for medicinal products (MPs) (including 219 new active substances (NAS) and orphans) were submitted to the HTA Committee. The number of HTA recommendations increased from 60 (first period) to 641 (third period), while the backlog of MPs pending HTA and price negotiations decreased from 89 and 106 (January 2020) to 8 and 44 (February 2023), respectively. The median time intervals for all application types decreased significantly over time. In February 2023, the median time for clinical data assessment of NAS (excluding orphans) almost halved from 207 days in the first period to 114 days; median times for NAS and orphans from regulatory approval to HTA application were 420 and 457 days, and from HTA application to reimbursement 228 and 417 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the HTA process in Greece improved significantly over time, with increased MP appraisals, backlog reduction, and decreased timelines. Delays in reimbursement of NAS were mainly caused by the long gap between regulatory approval and HTA application. Overall, HTA review times in Greece are now on par with that of well-established European HTA systems.

The influence of the national drug price negotiation policy reform on the medical expenses of patients in Xuzhou City: an interrupted time series analysis

Background

To reduce the burden of patients' medical care, the Xuzhou Municipal Government has initiated an exploratory study on the supply model and categorized management of nationally negotiated drugs. This study aims to understand the extent to which Xuzhou's 2021 reform of the National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy has had a positive impact on the healthcare costs of individuals with different types of health insurance.

Methods

The Interrupted Time Series Analysis method was adopted, and the changes in average medical expenses per patient, average medical insurance payment cost per patient and actual reimbursement ratio were investigated by using the data of single-drug payments in Xuzhou from October 2020 to October 2022.

Results

Following the implementation of the policy, there was a significant decrease in the average medical expenses per patient of national drug negotiation in Xuzhou, with a reduction of 62.42 yuan per month (p < 0.001). Additionally, the average medical insurance payment cost per patient decreased by 44.13 yuan per month (p = 0.01). Furthermore, the average medical expenses per patient of urban and rural medical insurance participants decreased by 63.45 yuan (p < 0.001), and the average monthly medical insurance payment cost per patient decreased by 57.56 yuan (p < 0.04). However, the mean total medical expenditures for individuals enrolled in employee medical insurance decreased by 63.41 yuan per month (p < 0.001), whereas the monthly decrease was 22.11 yuan per month (p = 0.21). On the other hand, there was no discernible change in the actual reimbursement ratio.

Conclusion

After the adoption of the NDPN policy, a noticeable decline has been observed in the average medical expenses per patient and the mean cost of the average medical insurance payment per patient, although to a limited extent. Notably, the reduction in employee medical insurance surpasses that of urban and rural medical insurance.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

BACKGROUND

Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023.

DATA AND METHODS

All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug's clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions.

RESULTS

Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to -2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs' clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

The cancer premium - explaining differences in prices for cancer vs non-cancer drugs with efficacy and epidemiological endpoints in the US, Germany, and Switzerland: a cross sectional study

Background

High treatment prices of new cancer drugs are a global public health challenge to patients and healthcare systems. Policymakers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing. The objective of this study was to assess whether drug efficacy or epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality) explain the gap in treatment prices between cancer and non-cancer drugs in the US, Germany, and Switzerland.

Methods

This cross-sectional study identified all new drugs approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland between 2011 and 2020. Drug efficacy was extracted from pivotal trials, drug prices from public and commercial databases, and epidemiological characteristics from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study. We used regression models to explain drug prices with drug efficacy and epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality).

Findings

The cohort included 181 drugs, including 68 (37.5%) drugs approved for treatment of cancer. A significant negative correlation was found between incidence/prevalence and treatment prices, and a significant positive correlation was observed between mortality and treatment prices for both, cancer and non-cancer drugs. A significant association between relative drug efficacy and treatment prices of drugs was observed, however, less pronounced for cancer drugs. Our regression estimates indicated that after adjusting for efficacy and epidemiological characteristics, cancer drugs were on average approximately three times more expensive compared to non-cancer drugs in all three countries, indicating a cancer premium; i.e., treatment prices of cancer drugs were on average USD 74,412 (95% CI [62,810; 86,015]) more expensive in the US compared to non-cancer drugs, USD 37,770 (95% CI [26,175; 49,367]) more expensive in Germany, and USD 32,801 (95% CI [27,048; 38,555]) more expensive in Switzerland. Our model explained 72% of the variance in observed prices (R2).

Interpretation

Drug pricing reforms should target the cancer premium to improve access of patients to cancer drugs as well as to achieve equity across the different therapeutic areas and sustainability in the health care systems.

Funding

This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF, grant number PCEGP1_194607) and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

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.

Price trends of reimbursed oncological drugs in Switzerland in 2005-2019: A descriptive analysis

Increasing oncological treatment costs are a major global concern with the risk of entailing two-tiered health care. Among cost determining factors is the price of individual drugs. In recognition of the central role of this factor, we present a comprehensive overview of the development of monthly prices of oncological drugs introduced over the last 15 years in Switzerland. We identified all oncological drugs newly reimbursed by mandatory health insurance in 2005-2019, and searched public repositories for their package prices, indications with approval dates, and treatment regimens for the calculation of (indication-specific) monthly prices. We found 81 products covering 77 different substances (39.5% protein kinase inhibitors, 21.0% monoclonal antibodies). Most indications related to the topography "blood", followed by "lung and thorax" and "digestive tract". From 2005-2009 to 2015-2019, the median monthly product price over all distinct indications of all products decreased by 7.56% (CHF 5,699 [interquartile range 4,483-7,321] to CHF 5,268 [4,19-6,967]), whereas it increased by 73.7% for monoclonal antibodies. In December 2019, six products had monthly prices over CHF 10,000, all approved for hematological or dermatological cancers. Our analysis suggests that individual price developments of oncological drugs are presently not the major driver of rising cancer treatment costs. However, rising launch prices of some new, mostly hematological drugs are of concern and require continued monitoring.

Analysis of Launch and Postapproval Cancer Drug Pricing, Clinical Benefit, and Policy Implications in the US and Europe

Importance

The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched.

Objective

To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs.

Results

The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country.

Conclusions and Relevance

During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.

Do Drug Accessibility and OOP Burden Affect Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients With Chronic Diseases? - EQ-5D-5L Evaluation Evidence From Five Districts in China

Purpose: The dependence of patients with chronic diseases on drugs may affect their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aims to assess the relationship between the direct economic burden caused by out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, drug accessibility, sociodemographic characteristics, and health-related quality of life. Methods: 1,055 patients with chronic diseases from Gansu, Hebei, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Tianjin were investigated. Data collection included basic conditions and economic and health insurance conditions of patients with chronic diseases. The CLAD and Tobit regression models were used to analyze and compare the health-related quality of life and influencing factors of patients with chronic diseases in five districts. Differentiated analysis was conducted through sub-sample regression to explore the variable health effects of patients with single and multiple diseases. Results: A total of 1,055 patients with chronic diseases participated in the study, 54.4% of whom were women. The overall average utility score was 0.727, of which Sichuan Province was the highest with 0.751. Participants reported the highest proportion of pain/discomfort problems, while patients reported the least problems with self-care. The improvement of drug accessibility and the reduction of the burden of out-of-pocket expenses have significant positive effects on HRQoL. Various sociodemographic factors such as age and gender also have significant impact on HRQoL of patients with chronic diseases. HRQoL of patients with multiple chronic diseases is more affected by various influencing factors than that of patients with single disease. Conclusion: In order to improve the quality of life of patients with chronic diseases, it is of great importance to ensure the accessibility of drugs and reduce patients' medication burden. Future focus should shift from preventing and controlling chronic diseases as individual diseases to meeting the comprehensive health needs of people suffering from multiple diseases.

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost-benefit analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France).

METHODS

For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries.

FINDINGS

Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France).

INTERPRETATION

Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries.

FUNDING

Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).