CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

A strategic framework for synergizing managed entry agreement efforts to access pharmaceutical products in Saudi Arabia-results from a multi-stakeholder workshop

BACKGROUND

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) between manufacturers and healthcare payers allow health systems to maximize patients' access to treatments while maintaining financial sustainability. However, to work efficiently, MEAs need to be integrated into a country's formal pricing, reimbursement, and market access processes. This study proposes a country-specific MEA framework for pharmaceutical products and sheds light on the key enablers of optimal implementation of MEAs in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study was conducted through secondary data collection derived from systematic literature search followed by a half-day multi-stakeholder workshop hosted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia including representatives from different governmental, quasi-governmental, and private sectors, all of whom had a job role related to pharmaceutical pricing, reimbursement, and market access. A predefined and validated set of questions was used to guide the workshop discussion with props and prompts to elicit more insights on MEAs design and framework from the participants. The workshop discussion and interactions were digitally recorded to enable verbatim transcription, followed by a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten themes emerged from the workshop discussion with majority guided the framework design: (1) access to innovative medications; (2) stakeholder views about MEAs; (3) early dialogue; (4) prioritization of MEAs for pharmaceutical products; (5) the regulatory landscape; (6) designing a technical framework for MEAs; (7) innovative payment models; (8) health system governance; (9) challenges for successful implementation; and (10) stakeholder engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

In Saudi Arabia, MEAs are perceived as strategic levers to enable health system to navigate the access paradox, particularly for innovative and high-cost therapies. Nevertheless, having in place a robust Saudi-specific framework and anchored regulations and policies is essential to ensure that MEAs enhance-rather than compromise-access, sustainability, and equity. As therapies grow more complex, Saudi Arabia must adopt agile, evidence-adaptive MEAs policy and structure to remain fit for purpose.

Perceptions of risk sharing agreements in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders: a convergent parallel mixed approach

OBJECTIVES

In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.

METHODS

In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (n = 3), domestic (n = 4) and foreign (n = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (n = 6) using a purposive sampling method.

RESULTS

Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.

CONCLUSION

The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.

The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada

BACKGROUND

Innovative health technologies have increasingly emerged as a promising solution for patients with untreatable or challenging conditions. However, these technologies often come with expensive costs and limited evidence at the time of launch. This study assessed how these high-priced drugs with limited evidence were appraised and introduced in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada, where cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) generally plays a central role in pricing and reimbursement decisions.

METHODS

The study analysed 22 high-priced drugs (24 indications) introduced in South Korea, which were granted CEA waivers due to difficulties in evidence generation and high unmet needs. Data, including funding arrangements and evidence assessed, were derived from national health technology assessment (HTA) documents and other public domains in the four countries.

RESULTS

Nearly all drugs received positive recommendations, largely through managed entry agreements (MEAs), particularly in England. Single-arm trials were more common in South Korea and England. Indirect comparison was the primary source of comparative effectiveness in England (70.0%), emphasising alignment with current practices. Australia and Canada utilised both indirect comparison and head-to-head trial data in similar proportions. Except for South Korea, all countries still required CEA data for these drugs. Data collection for coverage with evidence development was necessary in 55.0% of cases in England, and less in other countries.

CONCLUSION

HTA agencies increasingly accept the uncertainty of high-priced drugs with high unmet needs through MEAs. To ensure timely access and value for money, implementing full value assessment and uncertainty management, while strengthening national and international collaboration for effective data collection, is imperative.

Ensuring the affordable becomes accessible-lessons from ketamine, a new treatment for severe depression

In this paper, the case study of ketamine as a new treatment for severe depression is used to outline the challenges of repurposing established medicines and we suggest potential solutions. The antidepressant effects of generic racemic ketamine were identified over 20 years ago, but there were insufficient incentives for commercial entities to pursue its registration, or support for non-commercial entities to fill this gap. As a result, the evaluation of generic ketamine was delayed, piecemeal, uncoordinated, and insufficient to gain approval. Meanwhile, substantial commercial investment enabled the widespread registration of a patented, intranasal s-enantiomeric ketamine formulation (Spravato®) for depression. However, Spravato is priced at $600-$900/dose compared to ~$5/dose for generic ketamine, and the ~AUD$100 million annual government investment requested in Australia (to cover drug costs alone) has been rejected twice, leaving this treatment largely inaccessible for Australian patients 2 years after Therapeutic Goods Administration approval. Moreover, emerging evidence indicates that generic racemic ketamine is at least as effective as Spravato, but no comparative trials were required for regulatory approval and have not been conducted. Without action, this story will repeat regularly in the next decade with a new wave of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy treatments, for which the original off-patent molecules could be available at low-cost and reduce the overall cost of treatment. Several systemic reforms are required to ensure that affordable, effective options become accessible; these include commercial incentives, public and public-private funding schemes, reduced regulatory barriers and more coordinated international public funding schemes to support translational research.

Challenges in the Evaluation of Emerging Highly Specialised Technologies: Is There a Role for Living HTA?

There is currently deep uncertainty about the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of highly specialised technologies (HSTs), like gene and cell therapies. These treatments are novel, typically have high upfront costs, the patient populations are small and heterogenous, there is minimal information on their long-term safety and effectiveness, and data are limited and often of poor quality. With the increasing number of these technologies and their high cost burden on governments and health care providers, policy makers are currently walking a decision tightrope. On the one hand, an unfavourable funding decision could potentially limit patient access to life-saving treatments, while on the other, a favourable decision could result in unsustainable budget impacts and perhaps poorer patient health outcomes. Health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to determine the value of a health technology in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system. However, standard HTA processes have failed to mitigate the deep uncertainties associated with these technologies. In this paper, we propose a Living HTA framework to address these challenges. This framework includes a one-off process for making explicit the societal values associated with HSTs. These would inform the decision-making approach, data collection and the development of disease-specific reference models to be used by industry sponsors as the basis for their submissions for public funding. Coverage with an evidence development mechanism is also proposed by which data can be collected in real time to update the reference model on a rolling basis, thereby allowing re-assessment of the clinical and cost effectiveness of individual HSTs. The HTA would be 'live' until the results indicate there is sufficient certainty for the funding decision to be confirmed, the price changed or the funding removed.

Implementing outcomes-based risk-sharing agreements: an integrative review of applications in blood cancer in the UK and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes-based risk-sharing agreements (OBRSA) have been increasingly used worldwide to manage uncertainty in value assessments. This review aimed to summarize motivations, barriers, and facilitators to implementing OBRSAs with a specific focus on therapies for hematological cancer.

AREAS COVERED

An integrative review was conducted based on a scoping of existing reviews on the topic and reports published by UK NICE. Findings from 16 articles and 10 reports were summarized and categorized into three themes: applications in blood cancer drugs, motivations for adoption, and barriers and facilitators to implementation.

EXPERT OPINION

There was a dissociation between the theoretical basis for opting for OBRSAs, and reasons stated or inferred from practice. The administrative burden was considered a notable barrier to implementation, which affects not only payers and manufacturers but also healthcare providers. Effective stakeholder engagement and building mutual trust among key groups were identified as factors enabling successful implementation. The review raises essential considerations in implementing OBRSAs and implications for their future role, particularly for blood cancer drugs where uncertainty is rife. Carefully designed and managed schemes may remain an option for health systems to manage risks involved when funding high-cost treatments.

Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement.

METHODS

Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)).

RESULTS

Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

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.

How Risky Is That Risk Sharing Agreement? Mean-Variance Tradeoffs and Unintended Consequences of Six Common Risk Sharing Agreements

Background. Pharmaceutical risk sharing agreements (RSAs) are commonly used to manage uncertainties in costs and/or clinical benefits when new drugs are added to a formulary. However, existing mathematical models of RSAs ignore the impact of RSAs on clinical and financial risk. Methods. We develop a model in which the number of patients, total drug consumption per patient, and incremental health benefits per patient are uncertain at the time of the introduction of a new drug. We use the model to evaluate the impact of six common RSAs on total drug costs and total net monetary benefit (NMB). Results. We show that, relative to not having an RSA in place, each RSA reduces expected total drug costs and increases expected total NMB. Each RSA also improves two measures of risk by reducing the probability that total drug costs exceed any threshold and reducing the probability of obtaining negative NMB. However, the effects on variance in both NMB and total drug costs are mixed. In some cases, relative to not having an RSA in place, implementing an RSA can increase variability in total drug costs or total NMB. We also show that, for some RSAs, when their parameters are adjusted so that they have the same impact on expected total drug cost, they can be rank-ordered in terms of their impact on variance in drug costs. Conclusions. Although all RSAs reduce expected total drug costs and increase expected total NMB, some RSAs may actually have the undesirable effect of increasing risk. Payers and formulary managers should be aware of these mean-variance tradeoffs and the potentially unintended results of RSAs when designing and negotiating RSAs.

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.

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.

Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US

As cancer drug prices rise, it remains unclear whether the cost of new interventions is related to their beneficial impact for patients at a societal-level. Using data for 2003-2015 from the IQVIA MIDAS® dataset, the relationship between cancer drug costs and drug clinical benefits was studied in four countries with different approaches to drug pricing. Summary measures of drug clinical effects on overall survival, quality of life, and safety were obtained from a review of health technology assessments. Mean total drug costs for a full course of treatment were estimated using standard posology for each medicine and in each country. Regression analysis was used to test whether, at a societal-level, the cost of recently licensed drugs is related to their beneficial impact for patients. Across all eligible medicines, average treatment costs were lowest in France and Australia and highest in the UK and US. Compared with Australia, France, and the UK, cancer medicines were on average between 1.2 and 1.9 times more expensive in the US, where the average total per patient cost for treatment was $68,255.17. Costs for new cancer medicines are high and, at best, only weakly associated with drug clinical benefits. The strength of this relationship nevertheless varied across countries. Some new cancer drugs-particularly in the US-may be neither affordable nor clinically beneficial over existing treatments. While all countries can benefit from strategies that more robustly align price with therapeutic benefit in cancer drugs, the US stands out in its opportunity to improve both affordability and value in cancer drug treatment.

Pharmaceutical companies' views on a health technology assessment (HTA) entity in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is undergoing a massive healthcare transformation to fulfill its new, national "Vision 2030." To align with this objective, Saudi Arabia is establishing a new, independent and evidence-based health technology assessment (HTA) entity to help it maximize health gains through efficient use of resources. This study was designed to ascertain how pharmaceutical companies perceive the creation of such a national HTA entity in Saudi Arabia; what they think about it and expect from it. To achieve the study's aim, we held a workshop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, lasting four and a half hours and hosted by the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH). We invited 16 market access directors and managers from different multinational pharmaceutical companies to discuss the establishment of a national HTA entity. The findings from the workshop were structured around three axes: vision and remit; HTA method; and implementation and practical considerations. Overall, the pharmaceutical company participants were positive about HTA's value for the Saudi healthcare system and expressed willingness to adapt to meet its future requirements.

Funding and Service Organization to Achieve Universal Health Coverage for Medicines: An Economic Evaluation of the Best Investment and Service Organization for the Brazilian Scenario

BACKGROUND

There are many health benefits since 31 years after the foundation of the National Health Service (NHS) in Brazil, especially the increase in life expectancy. However, family-income inequalities, insufficient funding, and suboptimal private sector-public sector collaboration are still areas for improvement. The efforts of Brazil to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) for medicines have resulted in increased public financing of medicines and their availability, reducing avoidable hospitalization and mortality. However, lack of access to medicines still remains. Due to historical reasons, pharmaceutical service organization in developing countries may have important differences from high-income countries. In some cases, developing countries finance and promote medicine access by using the public infrastructure of health care/medical units as dispensing sites and cover all costs of medicines dispensed. In contrast, many high-income countries use private community pharmacies and cover the costs of medicines dispensed plus a fee, which includes all logistic costs. In this study, we will undertake an economic evaluation to understand the funding needs of the Brazilian NHS to reduce inequalities in access to medicines through adopting a pharmaceutical service organization similar to that seen in many high-income countries with hiring/accrediting private pharmacies.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation of a model to provide access to medicines within public funds based on a decision tree model with two alternative scenarios public pharmacies (NHS, state-owned facilities) versus private pharmacies (NHS, agreements). The analysis assumed the perspective of the NHS. We identified the types of resources consumed, the amount, and costs in both scenarios. We also performed a budget impact forecast to estimate the incremental funding required to reduce inequalities in access to essential medicines in Brazil.

FINDINGS

The model without rebates for medicines estimated an incremental cost of US$3.1 billion in purchasing power parity (PPP) but with an increase in the average availability of medicines from 65% to 90% for citizens across the country irrespective of family income. This amount places the NHS in a very good position to negotiate extensive rebates without the need for external reference pricing for government purchases. Forecast scenarios above 35% rebates place the alternative of hiring private pharmacies as dominant. Higher rebate rates are feasible and may lead to savings of more than US$1.3 billion per year (30%). The impact of incremental funding is related to medicine access improvement of 25% in the second year when paying by dispensing fee. The estimate of the incremental budget in five years would be US$4.8 billion PPP. We have yet to explore the potential reduction in hospital and outpatient costs, as well as in lawsuits, with increased availability with the yearly expenses for these at US$9 billion and US$1.4 billion PPP respectively in 2017.

INTERPRETATION

The results of the economic evaluation demonstrate potential savings for the NHS and society. Achieving UHC for medicines reduces household expenses with health costs, health litigation, outpatient care, hospitalization, and mortality. An optimal private sector-public sector collaboration model with private community pharmacy accreditation is economically dominant with a feasible medicine price negotiation. The results show the potential to improve access to medicines by 25% for all income classes. This is most beneficial to the poorest families, whose medicines account for 76% of their total health expenses, with potential savings of lives and public resources.

Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment

There is growing interest among pharmaceutical policymakers in how to "disinvest" from subsidized medicines. This is due to both the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the increasing use of accelerated and conditional reimbursement pathways which mean that medicines are being subsidized on the basis of less robust evidence of safety and efficacy. It is crucial that disinvestment decisions are morally sound and socially legitimate, but there is currently no framework to facilitate this. We therefore reviewed the bioethics literature in order to identify ethical principles and concepts that might be relevant to pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. This revealed a number of key ethical considerations-both procedural and substantive-that need to be considered when making pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. These principles do not, however, provide practical guidance so we present a framework outlining how they might be applied to different types of disinvestment decisions. We also argue that, in this context, even the most rigorous ethical reasoning is likely to be overridden by moral intuitions and psychological biases and that disinvestment decisions will need to strike the right balance between respecting justifiable moral intuitions and overriding unjustifiable psychological impulses.