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

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

Access to innovative drugs and the National Reimbursement Drug List in China: Changing dynamics and future trends in pricing and reimbursement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple reforms aimed at improving the Chinese population's health have been introduced in recent years, including several designed to improve access to innovative drugs. We sought to review current factors affecting access to innovative drugs in China and to anticipate future trends.

METHODS

Targeted reviews of published literature and statistics on the Chinese healthcare system, medical insurance and reimbursement processes were conducted, as well as interviews with five Chinese experts involved in the reimbursement of innovative drugs.

RESULTS

Drug reimbursement in China is becoming increasingly centralized due to the removal of provincial pathways, the establishment of the National Healthcare Security Administration and the implementation of the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), which is now the main route for drug reimbursement in China. There is also an increasing number of other channels via which patients may access innovative treatments, including various types of commercial insurance and special access. Health technology assessment (HTA) and health economic evidence are becoming pivotal elements of the NRDL decision-making process. Alongside the optimization of HTA decision making, innovative risk-sharing agreements are anticipated to be increasingly leveraged in the future to optimize access to highly specialized technologies and encourage innovation while safeguarding limited healthcare funds.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug public reimbursement in China continues to align more closely with approaches widely used in Europe in terms of HTA, health economics and pricing. Centralization of decision-making processes for public reimbursement of innovative drugs allows consistency in assessment and access, which optimizes the improvement of the Chinese population's health.

On the Anatomy of Health-related Actions for Which People Could Reasonably be Held Responsible: A Framework

Should we let personal responsibility for health-related behavior influence the allocation of healthcare resources? In this paper, we clarify what it means to be responsible for an action. We rely on a crucial conceptual distinction between being responsible and holding someone responsible, and show that even though we might be considered responsible and blameworthy for our health-related actions, there could still be well-justified reasons for not considering it reasonable to hold us responsible by giving us lower priority. We transform these philosophical considerations into analytical use first by assessing the general features of health-related actions and the corresponding healthcare needs. Then, we identify clusters of structural features that even adversely affected people cannot reasonably deny constitute actions for which they should be held responsible. We summarize the results in an analytical framework that can be used by decision-makers when considering personal responsibility for health as a criterion for setting priorities.

Monetary solidarity in Europe: can divisive institutions become 'moral opportunities'?

How does the inherent norm of integration, notably to share risks among its members in good faith, become a self-sustaining practice? I address this question generally and for a critical case of a divisive institution, i.e. the evolution of sovereign bailout funding in the Euro Area since 2010. Community building between states is a potential outcome of solidaristic practices, reinforced by positive feedback processes. Inspired by Deborah Stone's [Stone, D. A. (1999). Beyond moral hazard: Insurance as moral opportunity. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6(1), 12-46] work on insurance, I demonstrate that there are social mechanisms at play that favour the secular expansion of risk sharing between states.

Re-engineering the innovator-clinic interface for adoption of advanced therapies

The relationship between regenerative medicine innovators and the clinics that will use their inventions continues to evolve. In the UK, the Advanced Therapy Treatment Centres exemplify this. The agents in the value chain are becoming collaborators in a shared innovation process. This paper proposes a larger role for systems engineering in this change and a cost-based representation of institutional readiness in designing suitable operational models for clinical adoption. The proposed approach places this value in a whole-lifetime cost framework. The current value for the adoption process can then be estimated for comparison with the sum of the adoption costs, the costs of operating at steady state and, if need be, replacement costs at end of life of the innovation.

Risk sharing or risk shifting? On the development of patient access schemes in the process of updating the national list of health services in Israel

Background: Agreements between payers and pharmaceutical/medical device companies are widely implemented to address financial and clinical uncertainties. We analyzed the main characteristics of these agreements in Israel from 2011-2018.Research design and methods: We reviewed all agreements implemented during the study period. Information regarding the type of agreement, therapeutic indications, its time frame and the total budget involved are presented.Results: A total of 56 agreements were signed since 2011, of which 53 (95%) were financial-based and 50 (89%) referred to pharmaceuticals. The annual number of agreements increased from one in 2011 to 21 in 2018. The main therapeutic areas covered were: oncology (41%), hepatitis C (16%), neurology (11%), respiratory (9%), and cardiovascular (7%). The proportion of the annual budget allocated subject to these agreements increased accordingly from 3% in 2011 to 73% in 2018. The majority (63%) of the agreements were signed for 5 years, 9% were shorter-term and 20% have no time-limit. In 14 (44%) of the financial-based agreements implemented through 2017, the actual utilization exceeded the pre-specified threshold and the companies reimbursed the health-plans accordingly.Conclusions: The number of agreements and the allocated budget subject to these agreements increased substantially in recent years. Most agreements are financial-based that, in many cases, shifted the short-term financial risk from health-plans to the industry.

Annuity payments can increase patient access to innovative cell and gene therapies under England's net budget impact test

Background: Cell and gene therapies have the potential to provide therapeutic breakthroughs, but the high costs of researching, developing, manufacturing and delivering them translate into prices that may challenge healthcare budgets. Various measures exist that aim to address the affordability challenge, including reducing price, limiting patient numbers and/or linking remuneration to product performance. Objective: To explore how the net budget impact test recently introduced in England can affect patient access to high-value, one-off cell and gene therapies, and how managed entry agreements can improve access. Methods: We use a hypothetical example where a new high-value, one-off therapy launches in an indication where it displaces a relatively low cost chronic treatment. We calculate the number of patients that can be treated without exceeding the £20 million net budget impact threshold, and compare results for scenarios where a full upfront payment is used, and where annuity-based payments are used. Results: Charging a full upfront payment at the time of treatment can lead to suboptimal patient access. Conclusion: Annuity-based payments in combination with an outcomes-based remuneration scheme reduce consequences of decision uncertainty and can increase patient access, without exceeding the net budget impact test.

Opening the gateways to market and adoption of regenerative medicine? The UK case in context

Regenerative medicine is a site for opposing forces of gatekeeping and innovation. This applies both to regulation of market entry and to clinical adoption. Key gateways include the EU's Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation, technology assessment body NICE and commissioning/service contractor National Health Service England. The paper maps recent gatekeeping flexibilities, describing the range of gateways to market and healthcare adoption seen as alternatives to mainstream routes. The initiatives range from exemptions in pharmaceutical and ATMP regulations, through 'adaptive pathways' and 'risk-based' approaches, to special designation for promising innovation, value-based assessment and commissioner developments. Future developments are considered in the UK's 'accelerated access review'. Caution is urged in assessing the impact of these gateway flexibilities and their market and public health implications.

Futurescapes: evidence expectations in the USA for comparative effectiveness research for drugs in 2020

AIM

Explore key factors influencing future expectations for the production of evidence from comparative effectiveness research for drugs in the USA in 2020 and construct three plausible future scenarios.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Semistructured key informant interviews and three rounds of modified Delphi with systematic scenario-building methods.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

Most influential key factors were: health delivery system integration; electronic health record development; exploitation of very large databases and mixed data sources; and proactive patient engagement in research. The scenario deemed most likely entailed uneven development of large integrated health systems with pockets of increased provider risk for patient care, enhanced data collection systems, changing incentives to do comparative effectiveness research and new opportunities for evidence generation partnerships.

Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? "Success fee": a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure

BACKGROUND

Drug costs have risen rapidly in the last decade, driving third-party payers to adopt performance-based agreements that provide either a discount before payment or an ex post reimbursement on the basis of treatments' effectiveness and/or safety issues.

OBJECTIVES

This article analyses the strategies currently approved in Italy and proposes a novel model called "success fee" to improve payment-by-result schemes and to guarantee patients rapid access to novel therapies.

METHODS

A review of the existing risk-sharing schemes in Italy has been performed, and data provided by the Italian National report (2012) on drug use have been analyzed to assess the impact on drug expenditure deriving from the application of "traditional" performance-based strategies since their introduction in 2006.

RESULTS

Such schemes have poorly contributed to the fulfillment of the purpose in Italy, producing a trifling refund, compared with relevant drugs costs for the National Health System : €121 million out of a total of €3696 million paid. The novel risk-sharing agreement called "success fee" has been adopted for a new high-cost therapy approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, pirfenidone, and consists of an ex post payment made by the National Health System to the manufacturer for those patients who received a real benefit from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

"Success fee" represents an effective strategy to promote value-based pricing, making available to patients a rapid access to innovative and expensive therapies, with an affordable impact on drug expenditure and, simultaneously, ensuring third-party payers to share with manufacturers the risk deriving from uncertain safety and effectiveness.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).