Increasing healthcare costs in inflammatory bowel disease 2007-2020 in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease has been linked to increasing healthcare costs, but longitudinal data on other societal costs are scarce. AIM: To assess costs, including productivity losses, in patients with prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) in Sweden between 2007 and 2020. METHODS: We linked data from national registers on all patients with CD or UC and a matched (sex, birthyear, healthcare region and education) reference population. We assessed mean costs/year in Euros, inflation-adjusted to 2020, for hospitalisations, out-patient visits, medications, sick leave and disability pension. We defined excess costs as the mean difference between patients and matched comparators. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2020, absolute mean annual societal costs in working-age (18-64 years) individuals decreased by 17% in CD (-24% in the comparators) and by 20% in UC (-27% in comparators), due to decreasing costs from sick leave and disability, a consequence of stricter sick leave regulations. Excess costs in 2007 were dominated by productivity losses. In 2020, excess costs were mostly healthcare costs. Absolute and excess costs increased in paediatric and elderly patients. Overall, costs for TNF inhibitors/targeted therapies increased by 274% in CD and 638% in UC, and the proportion treated increased from 5% to 26% in CD, and from 1% to 10% in UC. CONCLUSION: Between 2007 and 2020, excess costs shifted from productivity losses to direct healthcare costs; that is, the patients' compensation for sickness absence decreased, while society increased its spending on medications. Medication costs were driven both by expanding use of TNF inhibitors and by high costs for newer targeted therapies.

Preparing for the incoming wave of biosimilars in oncology.

With the imminent arrival of oncology biosimilars in the therapeutic paradigm, stakeholders including a clinician, specialist nurse, patient advocate, regulator and economist provide their perspective on optimising the uptake of these new agents in the treatment of cancer. A number of key messages emerge, based on the discussion that took place during a session of the European Society for Medical Oncology's Annual Congress, ESMO Madrid 2017. First, for successful integration of biosimilars into the global healthcare paradigm, informing and educating the full scope of stakeholders, including clinicians, nurses, pharmacists and patients, is primordial. Success is dependent on providing solid evidence and ensuring all voices are heard. Second, for oncology medicines, much can be learnt from the growing experience of approved biosimilars in other disease indications, with success stories for patients, their healthcare providers and healthcare budgets alike. Finally, effective sustainability of the impact on healthcare budgets and the redirection of these savings require education and transparency.

Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries.

BACKGROUND: National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches - called managed entry agreements (MEAs) - to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe. METHODS: To identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time. RESULTS: 42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how 'uncertainty' and 'value' are perceived across healthcare systems.