The use of innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies in Europe and the USA

Evolving Concept of Value in Health Economics and Outcomes Research: Emerging Tools for Innovation and Access to Cell and Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases

OBJECTIVES

Recent scientific breakthroughs have propelled the development of disease-modifying and potentially curative cell and gene therapies (CGTs) for rare diseases, including those diseases previously considered untreatable. The unique characteristics of CGTs, however, pose challenges to the traditional methods of therapy value determination, reimbursement, and outcome evaluation used by regulatory and assessment agencies for product approval and market access. Notably, CGTs are one-time or short-course treatments, often first-in-class (precluding direct comparisons with effective alternatives), and have health benefits that are largely realized over time.

METHODS

We summarized emerging health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) solutions in 5 areas pertaining to CGTs for rare diseases using examples from literature and recently approved therapies. These solutions include the collection of real-world data to generate real-world evidence, patient centricity and novel value assessment frameworks, evolution of economic evaluation methodologies, novel reimbursement models and management of affordability, and health equity and societal benefits.

RESULTS

Advances in HEOR methods have informed the design and collection of long-term real-world data for CGT efficacy extrapolation, use of novel (including surrogate) endpoints, integration of the patient's voice and preferences, and application of sophisticated statistical methodology and artificial intelligence/machine learning techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing innovation in HEOR is expected to contribute to improved health outcomes, reduced costs, and enhanced access, ultimately enabling more efficient delivery of CGTs to patients living with rare diseases.

Philanthropic drug development: understanding its importance, mechanisms, and future prospects

Philanthropic drug development (PDD) addresses gaps in traditional pharmaceutical innovation, particularly for rare and underserved diseases. Cost and timeline challenges discourage new investments, especially in niche therapeutic areas. Patient organizations (POs) are uniquely positioned to help to reduce development challenges by providing expertise, supporting early research, fostering collaborations, and driving patient-centered clinical trials. PDD relies on effective partnerships between POs, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders, ensuring that patient perspectives inform the drug development process. PDD is poised to relieve the pressure on the traditional drug development process and thereby foster beneficial patient-focused innovations. In doing so, PDD allows pharmaceutical companies to expand their drug development activities into commercially unrewarding {} areas, diversifying their portfolios beyond competitive fields.

A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities in the Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

PURPOSE

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are agreements between firms and competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement, designed to enable coverage of new medicines while managing uncertainties around their financial impact or performance. Although these agreements can facilitate patient access, their complexity and costs seem to dampen enthusiasm for implementation. Nevertheless, MEAs remain a potential route, particularly for high-cost drugs with uncertain value claims. Given their pivotal role in bridging Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) to patients, their foreseeable future implementation calls for a specific investigation of their associated challenges and opportunities. Therefore, this work aims to identify challenges and opportunities in implementing MEAs specifically for ATMPs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar, based on the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. This has been supplemented by a snowball search. Through the thematic content analysis, opportunities and challenges were identified and grouped into themes and subthemes. Afterward, the subgroup analysis was performed to investigate challenges and opportunities with outcome-based agreements (OBAs) versus financial-based agreements (FBAs), jurisdiction, and ATMP type.

FINDINGS

Of the 787 peer-reviewed articles, 42 met the inclusion criteria. Challenges and opportunities were clustered into the mentioned themes: evidence generation and data management, financial and reimbursement, administration and resources, negotiation, and governance, law, and regulations. Of note, no specific challenges or opportunities were found to be cell- or gene-therapy-specific, but certain challenges seem amplified for ATMPs. Several differences emerged per MEA type and jurisdiction. OBAs are described to reward innovative and effective treatments and boost research and development (R&D) returns. FBAs improve cost-effectiveness ratios but can negatively affect curative ATMP's revenues. Still, their versatility facilitates payer engagement in MEA combinations (eg, OBA with spread payments). The US decentralized health care system reported additional implementation challenges to OBAs. Each payer internally decides on reimbursement, and coordination among private payers is hindered by antitrust law. Yet, a new Cell and Gene Therapy Access model has been proposed. This would allow manufacturers to negotiate OBAs directly with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services avoiding individual negotiation with each state. In Europe, there is an evident interest in implementing spread payments, yet accounting rules currently hamper their implementation.

IMPLICATIONS

This work offers insights into challenges and opportunities in MEAs implementation for ATMPs by investigating differences in MEA types and jurisdictions. Our findings provide significant insights that may help move successful MEA implementation forward, improving patient access to ATMPs.

The CMS Sickle Cell Gene Therapy Access Model

This Viewpoint explores and provides policy recommendations for the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model recently launched by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which aims to increase access to Medicaid recipiencts with rare and severe diseases.

A scoping review of the role of managed entry agreements in upcoming drugs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: learning from the case of spinal muscular atrophy

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic options for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are encouraging. However, there is currently no cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The clinical and economic uncertainty surrounding innovative treatments for rare neurodegenerative diseases makes it necessary to understand managed entry agreements (MEAs). The aim of this study was to review whether models of MEAs in SMA could be extrapolated to ALS.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review with information on MEAs on SMA in Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Lyfegen Library, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

RESULTS

We found 45 results in WOS and PubMed. After an initial survey, 10 were reviewed to assess eligibility, and three were selected. We obtained 44 results from Lyfegen Library, and three results each from NICE and CADTH.

CONCLUSION

The main objective of MEAs is to reduce uncertainty in the financing of drugs with a high budgetary impact and clinical concerns, as is the case with drugs for SMA and ALS. While the information available on MEAs in SMA is scarce, some conceptual models are publicly available. MEAs for long-term treatments for SMA could be used for the design of MEAs in ALS because of their similarities in economic and clinical uncertainty.

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.

Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability

OBJECTIVE

To construct a framework and calculation tool to compare the consequences of implementing different payment models for high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies and enable decision making to ultimately enhance timely patient access to innovative health interventions.

METHODS

A framework outlining steps to determine potentially suitable payment models was developed. Based on the framework, a supporting calculation tool operationalised as an Excel-based model was constructed to quantify the associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the intended payment agreement, the total budget impact and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years for the total expected lifetime of the patient population. To demonstrate the potential of the framework, three case studies were used: onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus®) and etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix®). A hypothetical case study was used to illustrate the output of the calculation tool.

RESULTS

Part 1 of the framework presents steps for matching a suitable reimbursement and payment model with the disease and treatment characteristics. The reimbursement and payment models are further specified in Part 2. Part 3 guides end users through the setup of a calculation tool with which the financial impact can be calculated of two payment models: a price discount model and an outcome-based spread payment model with a discount. Part 4 concerns the output of the calculation tool, showing how different payment models lead to different financial consequences under three assumptions of longer term effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented framework provides decision makers with insight into the financial consequences of their chosen payment model under different assumptions. This can aid reimbursement negotiations by clarifying the optimal choice given a therapy's characteristics.

Clinical Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Gene and RNA Therapies for Rare Inherited Conditions

BACKGROUND

Gene and RNA therapies have potential to transform the treatment of rare inherited diseases, but there are concerns about the evidence supporting their use and high costs.

OBJECTIVE

We analyze the evidence supporting Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of gene and RNA therapies for rare inherited diseases and discuss implications for clinical practice and policy.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative analysis of FDA documents outlining the basis of approval for gene and RNA therapies approved for rare inherited diseases between 2016 and 2023. For each drug, we gathered five characteristics of the evidence supporting FDA approval (no phase 3 trial, nonrandomized, no clinical endpoint, lack of demonstrated benefit, and significant protocol deviation) and four characteristics of the FDA approval process (prior rejection or complete response, negative committee vote, discrepancy between label and trial population, and boxed warning). The main outcome was the number of drugs with each characteristic.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2023, 19 gene and RNA therapies received FDA approval to treat rare inherited diseases. The most common limitations in the evidence supporting approval of these drugs were nonrandomized studies (8/19, 42%), no clinical endpoint (7/19, 37%), lack of demonstrated benefit or inconsistent results (4/19, 21%), and no phase 3 trial (4/19, 21%). Half (3/6) of accelerated approvals and 57% (5/9) of drugs with breakthrough designation had nonrandomized trials, and gene therapies with one-time dosing were overrepresented (5/7, 71%) among the drugs with nonrandomized trials. Five of six accelerated approvals (83%) and five of nine pediatric drugs (56%), most of which were indicated for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, had no clinical endpoint. Four of nine (44%) pediatric drugs and four of six (67%) accelerated approvals failed to demonstrate benefit compared with none of the nonpediatric drugs and none of the traditional approvals. Five drugs, which all had different indications and represented a mix of RNA and gene therapies, did not have any of these evidence characteristics. Among drugs that received prior rejections or negative committee opinions, all four had nonrandomized trials and lacked a clinical endpoint, and 75% (3/4) lacked demonstrated benefit. Five of nine (56%) pediatric drugs were indicated for broader age groups according to the drug label compared with the trial populations. Of the three drugs with boxed warnings, two had pediatric indications and nonrandomized studies, and one had no phase 3 trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Issues related to trial design, outcome, and data integrity in the evidence supporting FDA approval of rare inherited disease gene and RNA therapies raise questions about whether this evidence is adequate to inform prescribing decisions. Gene and RNA therapies with accelerated approval and pediatric indications were overrepresented among drugs lacking clinical endpoints or demonstrated benefit and should be the focus of efforts to reduce uncertainty in the evidence.

Availability and financing of CAR-T cell therapies: A cross-country comparative analysis

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-T therapies) are a type of advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) that belong to a new generation of personalised cancer immunotherapies. This paper compares the approval, availability and financing of CAR-T cell therapies in ten countries. It also examines the implementation of this type of ATMP within the health care system, describing the organizational elements of CAR-T therapy delivery and the challenges of ensuring equitable access to all those in need, taking a more systems-oriented view. It finds that the availability of CAR-T therapies varies across countries, reflecting the heterogeneity in the organization and financing of specialised care, particularly oncology care. Countries have been cautious in designing reimbursement models for CAR-T cell therapies, establishing limited managed entry arrangements under public payers, either based on outcomes or as an evidence development scheme to allow for the study of real-world therapeutic efficacy. The delivery model of CAR-T therapies is concentrated around existing experienced cancer centres and highlights the need for high networking and referral capacity. Some countries have transparent and systematic eligibility criteria to help ensure more equitable access to therapies. Overall, as with other pharmaceuticals, there is limited transparency in pricing, eligibility criteria and budgeting decisions in this therapeutic area.

Current Challenges of Using Patient-Level Claims and Electronic Health Record Data for the Longitudinal Evaluation of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Insurance claims data and electronic health records (EHRs) have been used to characterize Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in real-world populations. The ability to assess patient-level DMD disease progression within insurance claims or EHR data infrastructures is unknown. Insurance claims and EHR data were comprehensively examined for availability and reliability of DMD outcomes that describe functional status and disease progression at the individual patient level over time.

METHODS

MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid claims, and EHR-linked Clarivate open claims datasets were examined for data measuring 54 previously identified DMD-relevant outcomes in patients with DMD. Each outcome was assigned to one of five categories: functional and clinical events, clinical measures, biomarkers, functional measures, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients were identified using published coding algorithms. Annual 5-year attrition and data availability for each outcome was determined. The ability to distinguish disease severity and identify test results was also considered where applicable.

RESULTS

A total of 1964 (MarketScan Commercial), 2007 (MarketScan Medicaid), and 10,639 (Clarivate) patients were identified. At 5 years, 31.7%, 35.1%, and 59.1% of patients remained in MarketScan Commercial, MarketScan Medicaid, and Clarivate, respectively. Claims were available for five of six functional and clinical events, with 45.5% (MarketScan Commercial), 48.0% (Clarivate), and 48.5% (MarketScan Medicaid) of patients with ≥ 1 claim for the most frequently identified clinical event (cardiomyopathy diagnosis). No data were available to describe frequency of wheelchair use or loss of ambulation. Very limited EHR data (≤ 2% of patients) were available to indicate tests were ordered for clinical measures, biomarkers, or functional assessments. No PRO notes or scores were observed. Data existed for inferring disease severity (e.g., hospitalization for cardiomyopathy); however, it was not apparent whether these events were incident.

CONCLUSION

Insurance claims and EHR-linked open claims data are of limited utility for holistically evaluating the progression and burden of DMD in individual patients.

Nucleic Acid Delivery Nanotechnologies for In Vivo Cell Programming

In medicine, it is desirable for clinicians to be able to restore function and imbue novel function into selected cells for therapy and disease prevention. Cells damaged by disease, injury, or aging could be programmed to restore normal or lost functions, such as retinal cells in inherited blindness and neuronal cells in Alzheimer's disease. Cells could also be genetically programmed with novel functions such as immune cells expressing synthetic chimeric antigen receptors for immunotherapy. Furthermore, knockdown or modification of risk factor proteins can mitigate disease development. Currently, nucleic acids are emerging as a versatile and potent therapeutic modality for achieving this cellular programming. In this review, we highlight the latest developments in nanobiomaterials-based nucleic acid therapeutics for cellular programming from a biomaterial design and delivery perspective and how to overcome barriers to their clinical translation to benefit patients.

Advances in manufacturing chimeric antigen receptor immune cell therapies

Biomedical research has witnessed significant strides in manufacturing chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies, marking a transformative era in cellular immunotherapy. Nevertheless, existing manufacturing methods for autologous cell therapies still pose several challenges related to cost, immune cell source, safety risks, and scalability. These challenges have motivated recent efforts to optimize process development and manufacturing for cell therapies using automated closed-system bioreactors and models created using artificial intelligence. Simultaneously, non-viral gene transfer methods like mRNA, CRISPR genome editing, and transposons are being applied to engineer T cells and other immune cells like macrophages and natural killer cells. Alternative sources of primary immune cells and stem cells are being developed to generate universal, allogeneic therapies, signaling a shift away from the current autologous paradigm. These multifaceted innovations in manufacturing underscore a collective effort to propel this therapeutic approach toward broader clinical adoption and improved patient outcomes in the evolving landscape of cancer treatment. Here, we review current CAR immune cell manufacturing strategies and highlight recent advancements in cell therapy scale-up, automation, process development, and engineering.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®)

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies.

METHODS

Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated.

RESULTS

When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Towards ethical drug pricing: the European Orphan Genomic Therapies Fund

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development.

Challenges for gene therapy in the financial sustainability of health systems: a scoping review

AIM

To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world.

RESULTS

The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness.

A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Evidence for FDA-Approved Cell and Gene Therapies

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.

Infrastructuring precision medicine: Making gene therapies for rare diseases workable in practice

Long viewed by social scientists as a future imaginary, precision medicine is now materializing in many healthcare systems in the form of new diagnostic practices and novel treatment modalities, such as gene therapies. Based on an ethnographic study of the introduction of the first two clinically available in-vivo gene therapies in the Danish healthcare system, we investigate what it takes to make these therapies workable in practice. Drawing on social science literature on infrastructuring, we describe the many forms of mundane work required to fit these therapies into regulatory frameworks, political processes and daily work practices in the healthcare system. Further, we observe how the processes of infrastructuring required to introduce the gene therapies into clinical practice had transformative implications as they redistributed roles and responsibilities among clinicians, pharmacists, procurement agencies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Improving access to gene therapy for rare diseases

Effective gene therapy approaches have been developed for many rare diseases, including inborn errors of immunity and metabolism, haemoglobinopathies and inherited blindness. Despite successful pre-clinical and clinical results, these gene therapies are not widely available, primarily for non-medical reasons. Lack of commercial interest in therapies for ultra-rare diseases, costs of development and complex manufacturing processes required for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are some of the main problems that are restricting access. The complexities and costs of navigating the regulatory environments in different jurisdictions for treatments that affect small numbers of patients is a problem unique to ATMPS for rare and ultra-rare diseases. In this Perspective, we outline some of the challenges and potential solutions that, we hope, will improve access to gene therapy for rare diseases.

Values, challenges, and responses associated with high-priced potential cures: perspectives of diverse stakeholders in South Korea

BACKGROUND

The emergence of high-priced potential cures has sparked significant health policy discussions in South Korea, where the healthcare system is funded through a single-payer National Health Insurance model. We conducted focus group interviews (FGIs) and accompanying surveys with diverse stakeholders to comprehensively understand related issues and find better solutions to the challenges brought by these technologies.

METHODS

From October to November 2022, 11 FGIs were conducted with stakeholders from various sectors, including government payers, policy and clinical experts, civic and patient organisations, and the pharmaceutical industry, involving a total of 25 participants. These qualitative discussions were supplemented by online surveys to effectively capture and synthesise stakeholder perspectives.

RESULTS

Affordability was identified as a critical concern by 84% of stakeholders, followed by clinical uncertainty (76%) and limited value for money (72%). Stakeholders expressed a preference for both financial-based controls and outcome-based pricing strategies to mitigate these challenges. Despite the support for outcome-based refunds, payers raised concerns about the feasibility of instalment payment models, whether linked to outcomes or not, due to the specific challenges of the Korean reimbursement system and the potential risk of 'cumulative liabilities' from ongoing payments for previously administered treatments. In addition, the FGIs highlighted the need for clear budgetary limits for drugs with high uncertainties, with mixed opinions on the creation of special silo funds (64.0% agreement). Less than half (48%) endorsed the use of external reference pricing, currently applied to such essential drugs in South Korea. A significant majority (84%), predominantly non-pharma stakeholders, advocated for addressing cost-effectiveness uncertainty through re-assessment once long-term clinical data become available.

CONCLUSIONS

This study uncovers a broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for more effective value assessment methodologies for high-priced potential cures, stressing the importance of more robust and comprehensive re-assessment supported by long-term data collection, rather than primarily relying on external reference pricing. Each type of stakeholders exhibited a cautious approach to their specific uncertainties, suggesting that new funding strategies should accommodate these uncertainties with predefined guidelines and agreements prior to the initiation of managed entry agreements.

Forecasting the potential impact of cell and gene therapies in France: projecting product launches and patients treated

Objective

To evaluate the potential impact of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) in France by forecasting the number of patients that will be treated with CGTs over the period 2023-2030 by therapeutic area and region.

Methods

A review of CGTs in clinical development and related disease epidemiology was conducted to forecast the number of CGT launches and patient population between 2023 and 2030. The number of expected launches was identified by filtering the clinical development pipeline with estimated time to launch and probability of success values from Project ALPHA. Disease prevalence and incidence in France were combined with projected adoption rates derived from historical data to forecast the patient population to be treated.

Results

Up to 44 new CGTs are forecasted to launch in France in the period 2023-2030, which translates into more than 69,400 newly treated patients in 2030. Leading indications in terms of newly treated patients per year include cardiovascular disease, hematological cancers and solid tumors with 27,300, 15,200 and 13,000 newly treated patients in 2030, respectively.

Discussion

The forecast suggests that the future landscape of CGTs will undergo a shift, moving from CGTs targeting (ultra) rare diseases to more prevalent diseases. In France, this will likely pose organizational challenges hindering patient access to these transformative therapies. Further research and planning around network organization and patient distribution are needed to assess and improve the readiness of the French healthcare system for ensuring access for this growing number of patients to be treated with CGTs.

Navigating Gene Therapy Access: The Case of Bulgaria in the Context of the EU Regulatory Landscape

Gene therapies (GTs) have recently emerged as revolutionary personalized therapeutic options. Despite their promising potential, challenges such as uncertainty regarding long-term health benefits and safety, along with extreme price tags, pose significant obstacles to patient access. Within the EU, the European Medicines Agency plays a pivotal role with regards to GT market authorization. However, national authorities are responsible for pricing and reimbursement, which results in fragment patient access within the EU. This study aimed to provide an overview of the complex landscape of post-market authorization accessibility for GT products in Bulgaria, comparing it with neighboring EU countries. We applied a mixed-methods approach, including desk research, public data requests, and list price comparisons. As of 1 April 2023, 14 GTs had a valid market authorization at the EU level. In Bulgaria, Kymriah® was the only GT included in the Positive Drug List (PDL), with an official list price of EUR 335,636.94. Similar results were found in Romania, whereas five GTs were included in Greece's PDL. Additionally, Zolgensma® was found accessible in Bulgaria through an alternative individual access scheme at an estimated price of EUR 1,945,000.00. In conclusion, this study emphasized targeted policy interventions to address health inequalities and to ensure timely access to GTs within the EU.

Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

The value-based price of transformative gene therapy for sickle cell disease: a modeling analysis

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited, progressively debilitating blood disorder. Emerging gene therapies (GTx) may lead to a complete remission, the benefits of such can only be realized if GTx is affordable and accessible in the low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) with the greatest SCD burden. To estimate the health impacts and country-specific value-based prices (VBP) of a future gene therapy for SCD using a cost-utility model framework. We developed a lifetime Markov model to compare the costs and health outcomes of GTx versus standard of care for SCD. We modeled populations in seven LMICs and six high-income countries (HICs) estimating lifetime costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in comparison to estimates of a country's cost-effectiveness threshold. Each country's unique VBP for GTx was calculated via threshold analysis. Relative to SOC treatment alone, we found that hypothetical GTx reduced the number of people symptomatic with SCD over time leading to fewer DALYs. Across countries, VBPs ranged from $3.6 million (US) to $700 (Uganda). Our results indicate a wide range of GTx prices are required if it is to be made widely available and may inform burden and affordability for 'target product profiles' of GTx in SCD.

Cost of implementing CAR-T activity and managing CAR-T patients: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent an innovation but raise issues for healthcare payers because of the uncertainty on impact at market launch, high cost and important organisational impact. The literature has focused on their assessment, appraisal and market access solutions. No evidence on the costs sustained to implement CAR-T is available and a few studies reported the cost of the CAR-T clinical pathway, including the activities that are remunerated through inpatient or outpatient fee-for-service/episode. This paper aims at filling the information gap, assessing the cost of implementing CAR-T activity and the full cost of managing the CAR-T clinical pathway.

METHODS

Cost analysis relied on the Activity Based Costing approach, which was applied to two Italian healthcare organisations, both CAR-T Centres authorized by the regional governments with a minimum of 20 patients treated with the first two CAR-T therapies launched on the market.

RESULTS

The cost of implementing CAR-T was estimated at €1.31 million (calculated for one of the organizations with complete data). Most of these costs (77%) were generated by quality assurance activity. The mean cost per patient entering the CAR-T pathway (59 and 27) and surviving at follow-up (21 and 5) ranges from €48K to €57K and from €96K to €106K, respectively. Fees for hospitalization and infusion of gene therapy accounts for more than 70% of these costs. The actual hospitalisation cost varies greatly across patients and is in general lower than the fee-for-episode paid by the region to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations (exploratory nature; the time spent by staff on activities which are not remunerated through fees was estimated through interviews with the CAR-T coordinators; cost items are not fully comparable), this research highlighted the relevant organisational and economic impact of CAR-T and provided important insights for policy makers and healthcare managers: the necessity to invest resources in CAR-T implementation; the need for assessing activities which are not remunerated through fees for service / episode; the opportunity to shift from fee-for-episode / service to bundled payments for CAR-T clinical pathway.

The health economics of cell and gene therapies

The health economics of cell and gene therapies is complex; due to resource-intensive manufacturing, high prices are required for commercial viability that are challenging for healthcare systems to accommodate. Despite high prices, cell and gene therapies can provide value when they deliver substantial clinical benefits and displace long-term healthcare costs compared with existing treatment options. In this chapter, the cost utility approach of economic evaluation is discussed, focusing on the considerations that occur more commonly in cell and gene therapies compared to conventional medicines, how these considerations create challenges in interpreting the evidence and coming to conclusions on value, and what tools exist for understanding the level of decision uncertainty. A summary of the economic evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy is provided as a real-world example that features the considerations discussed.

Pricing and reimbursement mechanisms for advanced therapy medicinal products in 20 countries

Introduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Access to Novel Medicines Platform.

Confronting High Costs And Clinical Uncertainty: Innovative Payment Models For Gene Therapies

Gene therapies offer potentially life-changing benefits for patients, but their unprecedented high prices exacerbate challenges for reimbursement. Payers must confront high budgetary impacts, as a large up-front payment for each patient makes it difficult to predict and absorb costs. Payers also face considerable clinical uncertainty, as evidence for efficacy and durability is limited at approval. Alternative payment models may address these reimbursement problems and ensure equitable patient access. We developed a taxonomy of possible payment mechanisms for gene therapies, including installments, risk pools, reinsurance, price-volume agreements, expenditure caps, subscriptions, outcomes-based payments and rebates, warranties, population outcomes-based agreements, and coverage with evidence development. We illustrate how these payment models take three main approaches: amortization, which mitigates initial budget impact by spreading payments over time; risk spreading, which makes budgets more predictable by pooling costs with other payers or capping costs based on expected volume; and performance-based payment, which addresses clinical uncertainty by tying prices to patient- or population-level outcomes. We discuss each payment model, its advantages and challenges, and considerations for US payers.

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.

How therapeutic advances have transformed the medical landscape: a primer for clinicians

Novel medicines are entering the market rapidly and are increasingly being used alone or in combination to treat illnesses of every sort. While transforming the lives of many patients, these new therapies have also forced us to reconsider the way we evaluate, use and fund medicines. This article offers a primer to help practitioners understand how the therapeutic landscape is changing and how this might impact the evidence generation, access to interventions, patient experience and quality of care.

Analysis of the Gene Therapies Authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy, altering the genes inside human cells, has recently emerged as an alternative for preventing and treating disease. Concerns have been expressed about the clinical value and the high cost of gene therapies.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the characteristics of the clinical trials, authorizations, and prices of gene therapies in the United States and the European Union.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We collected regulatory information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and manufacturer-listed prices from the United States, UK, and Germany. Descriptive statistics and t tests were conducted in the study.

RESULTS

As of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively. The FDA and EMA granted orphan designation to all gene therapies except talimogene laherparepvec. Pivotal clinical trials were nonrandomized, open level, uncontrolled, phase I-III, and included a limited number of patients. Study primary outcomes were mainly surrogate endpoints without demonstration of direct patient benefit. The price of gene therapies at market entry ranged from $200,064 to $2,125,000 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene therapy is used to treat incurable diseases that affect only a small number of patients (orphan diseases). Based on this, they are approved by the EMA and FDA with insufficient clinical evidence to ensure safety and efficacy, in addition to the high cost.

Financing and Reimbursement of Approved Advanced Therapies in Several European Countries

OBJECTIVES

The uncertainty in the cost-benefit of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) is a current challenge for their reimbursement in health systems. This study aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the National Health Authorities (NHAs) reimbursement recommendations issued in different European countries.

METHODS

The NHA reimbursement recommendations for the approved ATMPs were compared among 8 European Union (EU) Countries (EU8: Ireland, England/Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy). The search was carried out until December 31, 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 19 approved ATMPs and 76 appraisal reports were analyzed. The majority of the ATMPs were reimbursed, although with uncertainty in added therapeutic value. No relationship between the type of the European Medicines Agency approval and reimbursement was found. Managed entry agreements, such as payment by results, were necessary to ensure market access. The main issue during the evaluation was to base the cost-effectiveness analyses on assumptions because of the limited long-term data. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among countries reveals high variability. Overall, the median time to NHA recommendation for the EU8 is in the range of 9 to 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparent, harmonized, and systematic assessments across the EU NHAs in terms of cost-effectiveness, added therapeutic value, and grade of innovativeness are needed. This could lead to a more aligned access, increasing the EU market attractiveness and raising public fairness in terms of patient access and pricing.

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

METHOD

A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed).

CONCLUSION

The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND

The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

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.

Medicaid best price reforms to enable innovative payment models for cell and gene therapies

BACKGROUND

Cell and gene therapies promise durable benefits but face financial challenges from the uncertainty in their performance. Value-based purchasing arrangements (VBPAs) can address uncertainty but have been inhibited in the US by the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) approach to determining Medicaid Best Price (MBP) rebates. The likely effectiveness of MDRP reform proposals enabling VBPAs is examined in this study for durable cell and gene therapies.

METHODS

Monte Carlo simulations examined three potential reforms (Multiple Best Prices, Bundled Sales, and National Pooling) to determine the impact on payment misalignment, the required payer size to participate, and the percentage of total lives covered by a VBPA.

RESULTS

Simulation results suggest that 11% to 54% of commercial US lives would be feasibly covered by a VBPA depending on reform type and condition size. MPB reform achieved the highest commercial contracted percentage and lowest misalignment for commercial payers compared to National Pooling and Bundled Sales. State Medicaid plan results suggest lower extreme misalignment across all successfully contracted instances than commercial payers.

CONCLUSIONS

The Multiple Best Prices will likely enable VBPAs for many durable cell and gene therapies and larger payers. Further reforms may be needed to extend VBPAs to ultra-orphan conditions.

Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU

Ever since relevant bioengineering technologies have sufficiently matured to the platformizable commercialization stage, a slew of money has flocked to the cell and gene therapy market over the last few years, resulting in an abundance of clinical studies in the field. Newer modalities have brought up a string of regulatory and legislative tasks, such as developing guidelines and legislative rules to systematically regulate newer pharmaceutical products. Accordingly, another layer of legislation and guidelines tailored for cell and gene therapies has been introduced and is expected to evolve on par with technological progress. Furthermore, authorities have shifted to pricing and reimbursement policies that can share risks for cost and outcome among stakeholders altogether, such as developers and the government, while expanding the accessibility of patients to innovative cell and gene therapies. This review attempts to capture the salient regulatory features of the cell and gene therapy market in the context of South Korea and the European Union and points out where two sovereign entities currently stand on each policy element and how each tackles regulatory challenges. We can observe the converging trend where regulatory, pricing and reimbursement rules of adjoining countries in the supranational union or member countries of a consortium are getting more aligned. Evidently, concerted efforts to share regulatory science knowledge and embrace reference pricing have played their parts. The authors argue that policy priorities should be placed on initiatives to harmonize with other medical authorities to better the rights of patients and clear out the uncertainties of developers, ultimately to share and advance regulatory science and layout forward-looking policies at opportune times.

When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations-Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs

This study aimed to identify the current experiences with and future preferences for payment and reimbursement models for high-priced hospital therapies in the Netherlands, where the main barriers lie and assess how policy structures facilitate these models. A questionnaire was sent out to Dutch stakeholders (in)directly involved in payment and reimbursement agreements. The survey contained statements assessed with Likert scales, rankings and open questions. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-nine stakeholders (out of 100) (in)directly involved with reimbursement decision-making completed the survey. Our inquiry showed that currently financial-based reimbursement models are applied most, especially discounts were perceived best due to their simplicity. For the future, outcome-based reimbursement models were preferred, particularly pay-for-outcome models. The main stated challenge for implementation was generating evidence in practice. According to the respondents, upfront payments are currently implemented most often, whereas delayed payment models are preferred to be applied more frequently in the future. Particularly payment-at-outcome-achieved models are preferred; however, they were stated as administratively challenging to arrange. The respondents were moderately satisfied with the payment and reimbursement system in the Netherlands, arguing that the transparency of the final agreements and mutual trust could be improved. These insights can provide stakeholders with future direction when negotiating and implementing innovative reimbursement and payment models. Attention should be paid to the main barriers that are currently perceived as hindering a more frequent implementation of the preferred models and how national policy structures can facilitate a successful implementation.

Barriers for the evaluation of advanced therapy medicines and their translation to clinical practice: Umbrella review

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of medicine with wide potential application. Nevertheless, so far, only 19 have obtained European Union (EU) marketing authorisation and only 13 of these have translated successfully into clinical practice. This study conducts an umbrella review to identify the main barriers for the evaluation of ATMPs and their translation into clinical practice across the development lifecycle. 71 systematic reviews were included, of which 50 dealt primarily with effectiveness and safety, 13 with translation from pre-clinical to human subjects. Others dealt with economic issues and translation from health technology assessment to market access. The literature highlights the importance of synergistic research groups or networks that collaborate across the in-vitro science, preclinical and clinical investigation phases, and the role of private investor capital and public-private collaborations. Most ATMPs reviewed seem to have a favourable safety profile although considerable uncertainties remain. Randomised controlled trials are not always feasible in these patient groups. Greater sharing of data is recommended, both at preclinical and post-marketing real world evidence. There are considerable variations between EU countries in how they regulate hospital exemption for ATMPs, and this can lead to inequitable access for patients.

How can artificial intelligence optimize value-based contracting?

Efforts in the pharmaceutical market have been aimed at ensuring that the benefits obtained from the introduction of new therapies justify the associated costs. In recent years, drug payment models in healthcare have undergone a dramatic shift from focusing on volume (i.e., size of the target clinical population) to focusing on value (i.e., drug performance in real-world settings). In this context, value-based contracts (VBCs) were designed to align the payment of a drug to its clinical performance outside clinical trials by evaluating the effectiveness using real-word evidence (RWE). Despite their widespread implementation, different factors jeopardize the application of VBCs to most marketed drugs in a near future, including the need for easily measurable and relevant outcomes associated with clinical improvements, and access to a large patient population to assess said outcomes. Here, we argue that the extraction and analysis of massive amounts of RWE captured in patients' electronic health records (EHRs) will circumvent these issues and optimize negotiations in VBCs. Particularly, the use of Natural Language Processing (NLP) has proven successful in the analysis of structured and unstructured clinical information in EHRs in multicenter research studies. Thus, the application of NLP to analyze patient-centered information in EHRs in the context of innovative contracting can be utterly beneficial as it enables the real-time evaluation of treatment response and financial impact in real-world settings.

Gene Therapy for Neuromuscular Diseases: Health Economic Challenges and Future Perspectives

Highly efficacious, potentially curative gene therapies holds immense clinical promise, but also present complex challenges. At the time of regulatory approval and health technology assessment (HTA), evidence of efficacy and safety of gene therapies is often uncertain. In addition, research, development, and manufacturing costs, small pools of eligible patients, and the fact that many gene therapies are administered only once means that they frequently are associated with very high “one-off” price points. Although only a limited number of products have been brought to market globally, hundreds of clinical trials of gene therapies, including several of monogenetic neuromuscular diseases, are currently ongoing. Over time, as more and more conditions become amendable to gene therapy, the number of transformative, high-cost treatments is likely to increase considerably. For these reasons, concerns have been raised regarding the suitability of current health policy systems, including HTA frameworks, in ensuring appropriate access to these therapeutic innovations while simultaneously safeguarding value for taxpayers’ money, as well as affordability and sustainability. This review provides a summary overview of current challenges and future perspectives of gene therapies for neuromuscular diseases from a health economic point of view.

The Advanced Therapies Treatment Centres and their Network: a Model for the Accelerated Adoption of Advanced Therapies

Emerging advanced therapies that include cell and gene therapies and tissue-engineered products offer substantial therapeutic benefits. They also present challenges for health services in their modes of delivery to patients. Funding was made available in the UK to establish three Advanced Therapies Treatment Centres (ATTCs) and a network to coordinate their activities, supported by the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult (CGTC). The aim of this initiative was to grow the advanced therapies sector in the UK by enhancing access to the NHS for patients and industry through close collaboration between advanced therapy companies and publicly funded services and regulators. Here, we describe the initiative's antecedents, its collaborative structures and management and its activities. A guiding concept in shaping and assessing progress has been the idea of institutional readiness, an idea developed in the context of social sciences that defines and so can measure movement towards an organisation's full competence in delivering new technologies and approaches. We also report the initiative's outcomes and impacts as assessed by ourselves and by third parties. As the initiative has progressed it has excited increasing interest from advanced therapy companies who were not aware of or engaged in it at the outset and from healthcare systems that wished to learn from its practices. It is to further that end that we present our work.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

Critical Reflections on Reimbursement and Access of Advanced Therapies

Background: The health economic literature has questioned the cost-effectiveness and affordability of advanced therapies, proposed adjustments to value assessment frameworks, and discussed the use of outcome-based managed entry agreements and staggered payments in the last few years. The aim of this manuscript is to conduct a critical reflection on assessment criteria and access conditions for reimbursement of advanced therapies.

Methods: A narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature was conducted in April 2021 by searching PubMed; Google Scholar; policy and legislative documents; websites of health technology assessment agencies, advanced therapy organisations, governmental advanced therapy innovation programmes, consultancy agencies; ISPOR conference abstracts and presentations.

Results: Based on the available evidence, this manuscript argues that: a) advanced therapies can be cost-effective at high prices set by manufacturers; b) the economic evaluation framework adopted by many payers under-values these products; c) advanced therapies can be affordable and may not require spread payments; d) outcome-based managed entry agreements are theoretically attractive, but challenging in practice; e) the cost-effectiveness of advanced therapies depends on the outcome-based managed entry agreement and payment approach; f) there is a role for multinational collaborations to manage reimbursement and access of advanced therapies.

Conclusions: This manuscript shows that there is no single approach to reimbursement and access of advanced therapies. Instead, we support a more tailored assessment of health economic aspects of advanced therapies, which considers the heterogeneity of these products and their target populations.

Facilitating [corrected] 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.

Modeling Benefits, Costs, and Affordability of a Novel Gene Therapy in Hemophilia A

The objective was to undertake an early cost-effectiveness assessment of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (valrox; Roctavian) compared to factor (F)VIII prophylaxis or emicizumab (Hemlibra; Roche HQ, Bazel, Switzerland) in patients with severe Hemophilia A (HA) without FVIII-antibodies. We also aimed to incorporate and quantify novel measures of value such as treatment durability, maximum value-based price (MVBP) and break-even time (ie, time until benefits begin to offset upfront payment). We constructed a Markov model to model bleeds over time which were linked to costs and quality-of-life decrements. In the valrox arm, FVIII over time was estimated combining initial effect and treatment waning and then linked to bleeds. In FVIII and emicizumab arms, bleeds were based on trial evidence. Evidence and assumptions were validated using expert elicitation. Model robustness was tested via sensitivity analyses. A Dutch societal perspective was applied with a 10-year time horizon. Valrox in comparison to FVIII, and emicizumab showed small increases in quality-adjusted life years at lower costs, and were therefore dominant. Valrox' base case MVBP was estimated at €2.65 million/treatment compared to FVIII and €3.5 million/treatment versus emicizumab. Mean break-even time was 8.03 years compared to FVIII and 5.68 years to emicizumab. Early modeling of patients with HA in The Netherlands treated with valrox resulted in estimated improved health and lower cost compared to prophylactic FVIII and emicizumab. We also demonstrated feasibility of incorporation of treatment durability and novel outcomes such as value-based pricing scenarios and break-even time. Future work should aim to better characterize uncertainties and increase translation of early modeling to direct research efforts.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

Amortization of gene replacement therapies: A health policy analysis exploring a mechanism for mitigating budget impact of high-cost treatments

With gene replacement therapies (GRTs) increasingly and rapidly reaching the healthcare marketplace, the vast potential for improving patient health is matched by the potential budgetary impact for healthcare payers. GRTs are highly valuable given their potential life-extending or even curative benefits and may provide significant cost-offsets compared with standard of care. Current healthcare systems are, however, struggling to fund such valuable but costly therapies. Some payers have already implemented specific financing models to account for the new treatment paradigms, but these do not address the budget impact in the year of acquisition or administration of these costly technologies. This health policy analysis aimed to assess the rationale and feasibility of amortization, within the context of financing healthcare technologies, and specifically GRTs. Amortization is an accounting concept applied to intangible assets that allows for spreading the cost an intangible asset over time, allowing for repayment to occur via interest and principal payments sufficient to repay the intangible asset in full by its maturity. Our systematic scoping review on the amortization of healthcare technologies found a very small literature base with even that being unclear and inconsistent in its understanding of the issues. Where amortization was proposed as a solution for funding costly, but highly valuable GRTs, the concept was not fully investigated in detail, nor was the feasibility of the approach fully challenged. However, by providing clear definitions of relevant concepts along with an example of amortization models applied to some example GRTs, we propose that amortization can offer a promising method for funding of extraordinarily high-value healthcare technologies, thereby increasing market and patient access for these technologies. Nonetheless, healthcare accounting principles and financing guidelines must evolve to apply amortization to the rapidly developing GRTs.