From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy.

BACKGROUND: New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity. METHODS: We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines. RESULTS: The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years. CONCLUSION: The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

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.

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

OBJECTIVES: The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). METHODS: A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value. RESULTS: 189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

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.

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines.

BACKGROUND: Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified. RESULTS: 2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective.

Cross-sectional study to develop and describe psychometric characteristics of a patient-reported instrument (PROFFIT) for measuring financial toxicity of cancer within a public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. SETTING: Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes. PARTICIPANTS: From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males. INTERVENTION: A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient). RESULTS: After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test-retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

Variables affecting pricing of orphan drugs: the Italian case.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Evidence on determinants of prices for orphan medicines is scarce and not available for Italy. The aim of this paper is to provide an evidence on variables affecting the annual treatment cost of orphan drugs in Italy, testing the hypothesis of a negative correlation with the dimension of the target population and a positive correlation with the added therapeutic value of the drug and the quality of the evidence of pivotal studies. METHODS: Drugs with a European orphan designation reimbursed in Italy in the last 6 years (2014-2019) were considered. Univariate, cluster analysis and multiple regression models were used to investigate the correlation between the annual treatment cost and, as explanatory variables, the dimension of the target population, the existence of Randomized Clinical Trials as a proxy of the quality of the pivotal studies, the added therapeutic value. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis prevalence and added therapeutic value, as expected, have a negative and positive correlation with cost respectively. The correlation with RCT is not significant. In the multivariate model, coefficients for prevalence and added value are confirmed but for the latter are not significant anymore. We also found, through an interaction analysis, that the existence of an RCT has a positive impact on annual treatment cost when the target population is very small. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that value arguments and sustainability (dimension of the target population and its impact on budget impact) issues are considered for orphan drugs pricing: the role played by sustainability is systematically supported by our results. A more transparent and reproducible price negotiation process for orphan drugs is needed in Italy. This paper has contributed to highlight the implicit drivers of this process.

Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs for Patients with Schizophrenia: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Side Effects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for schizophrenia show different risk profiles, whose evidence has been evaluated through comparative reviews on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gains, metabolic and cardiovascular side effects of SGAs, relying on both RCTs and observational studies, by comparing variations between the start of treatment and the end of follow-up. The systematic review refers to papers published from June 2009 to November 2020. PRISMA criteria were followed. No restrictions on heterogeneity level have been considered for meta-analysis. A test for the summary effect measure and heterogeneity (I2 metric) was used. RESULTS: Seventy-nine papers were selected from 3076 studies (61% RCTs, 39% observational studies). Olanzapine and risperidone reported the greatest weight gain and olanzapine the largest BMI increase. Paliperidone showed the highest increase in total cholesterol, but is the only drug reporting an increase in the HDL cholesterol. Quetiapine XR showed the highest decrease in fasting glucose. Lurasidone showed the lowest increase in body weight and a reduction in BMI and was also the only treatment reporting a decrease in total cholesterol and triglycerides. The highest increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was reported by quetiapine XR. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations (differences in the mean dosages per patient and other side effects not included) this paper provides the first complete meta-analysis on SGAs in variations on metabolic risk profile between start of treatment and end of follow-up, with useful results for clinical practice and possibly for future economic evaluation studies.

Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: Is It a Cost-Saving Alternative to a Single-Gene Testing Approach?

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the costs of a next-generation sequencing-based (NGS-based) panel testing strategy to those of a single-gene testing-based (SGT-based) strategy, considering different scenarios of clinical practice evolution. METHODS: Three Italian hospitals were analysed, and four different testing pathways (paths 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified: two for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients and two for unresectable metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC) patients. For each path, we explored four scenarios considering the current clinical practice and its expected evolution. The 16 testing cases (4 scenarios × 4 paths) were then compared in terms of differential costs between the NGS-based and SGT-based approaches considering personnel, consumables, equipment, and overhead costs. Break-even and sensitivity analyses were performed. Data gathering, aimed at identifying the hospital setup, was performed through a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the professionals involved in testing activities. RESULTS: The NGS-based strategy was found to be a cost-saving alternative to the SGT-based strategy in 15 of the 16 testing cases. The break-even threshold, the minimum number of patients required to make the NGS-based approach less costly than the SGT-based approach, varied across the testing cases depending on molecular alterations tested, techniques adopted, and specific costs. The analysis found the NGS-based approach to be less costly than the SGT-based approach in nine of the 16 testing cases at any volume of tests performed; in six cases, the NGS-based approach was found to be less costly above a threshold (and in one case, it was found to be always more expensive). Savings obtained using an NGS-based approach ranged from €30 to €1249 per patient; in the unique testing case where NGS was more costly, the additional cost per patient was €25. CONCLUSIONS: An NGS-based approach may be less costly than an SGT-based approach; also, generated savings increase with the number of patients and different molecular alterations tested.

Price and reimbursement of advanced therapeutic medicinal products in Europe: are assessment and appraisal diverging from expert recommendations?

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main five European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process. METHODS: P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major five (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature. RESULTS: Reimbursement status of ATMPs is different across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints.

Price and reimbursement for orphan medicines and managed entry agreements: does Italy need a framework?

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy. This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article. The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements. Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty.

A qualitative analysis and development of a conceptual model assessing financial toxicity in cancer patients accessing the universal healthcare system.

PURPOSE: This paper illustrates a conceptual model for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) aimed at measuring financial toxicity (FT) in oncological setting in Italy, where citizens are provided universal healthcare coverage. METHODS: Focus groups with overall 34 patients/caregivers in three different Italian centers (from Northern, Centre, and Southern Italy) and an open-ended survey with 97 medical oncologists were undertaken. Transcripts from focus groups and the open-ended survey were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature; concepts identified formed the basis for item development that were then tested through the importance analysis (with 45 patients) and the cognitive debriefing (with other 45 patients) to test relevance and comprehension of the first draft PRO instrument. RESULTS: Ten domains were extracted by analyzing 156 concepts generated from focus groups and the open-ended survey. After controlling for redundancy, 55 items were generated and tested through the importance analysis. After controlling comprehension and feasibility through cognitive debriefing interviews, a first version of the questionnaire consisting of 30 items was devised. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study represents the first part of a study conducted to develop a new PROM to assess FT in Italy, by using a bottom-up approach that makes the most of patients' experiences and the health system analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03473379 first posted on March 22, 2018.

Cost-Effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Olaparib Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance Therapy After First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Advanced BRCA1/2-mutated Ovarian Cancer in the Italian National Health Service.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a lifetime Markov model in which a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer was assigned to receive either olaparib maintenance therapy or active surveillance (Italian standard of care) after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the 2 strategies. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from related clinical trial literature and extrapolated using parametric survival analyses. Data on costs were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were computed and compared against an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of €16,372 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. We used deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess how uncertainty affects results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings. FINDINGS: In the base-case scenario, during a 50-year time horizon, the total costs for patients treated with olaparib therapy and active surveillance were €124,359 and €97,043, respectively, and QALYs gained were 7.29 and 4.88, respectively, with an ICER of €9,515 per life-year gained, an ICUR of €11,345 per QALY gained, and an INMB of €12,104. In scenario analyses, considering maximum selling prices for all other drugs, ICUR decreased to €11,311 per QALY and €7,498 per QALY when a 10% and 20% discount, respectively, was applied to the olaparib official price, and the INMB increased to €12,186 and €21,366, respectively. DSA found that the model results were most sensitive to the proportion of patients with relapsing disease in response to platinum-based chemotherapy, time receiving olaparib first-line maintenance treatment, and subsequent treatments price. According to PSAresults, olaparib was associated with a probability of being cost-effective at a €16,372 per QALY WTP threshold ranging from 70% to 100% in the scenarios examined. IMPLICATIONS: Our analysis indicates that olaparib maintenance therapy may deliver a significant health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 50-year time horizon, from the Italian NHS perspective, providing value in a setting with curative intent.

Cost-effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy Versus No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Italian National Health Service.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of durvalumab consolidation therapy compared with no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression ≥1% from the Italian National Health Service perspective. METHODS: We developed a 12-month decision tree combined with a lifetime cohort Markov model in which patients were assigned to receive durvalumab consolidation therapy or active follow-up (Italian standard of care) after chemoradiotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the two strategies during a 40-year period. Clinical outcomes data were obtained from the respective clinical trials and extrapolated using survival analysis; cost data were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, and incremental net monetary benefit were computed and compared against a 16,372 € per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) willingness-to-pay threshold. We performed deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess how uncertainty affected results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings. FINDINGS: In the base-case scenario, during a 40-year period, the total costs for patients treated with durvalumab consolidation therapy and active follow-up were €59,860 and €49,840 respectively; life-years gained were 3.47 and 3.31, respectively; and QALYs gained were 2.73 and 2.50, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €62,131 per life-year, an incremental cost-utility ratio of €42,322 per QALY, and an incremental net monetary benefit of €-6,144. We found that durvalumab was cost-effective (incremental net monetary benefit = 0) when a discount of 13% and 30% on its official price was applied, considering all other drugs priced according to official or maximum selling prices, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the progression-free survival rate for durvalumab and active follow-up, health utility in progression-free state, and price of subsequent treatments. IMPLICATIONS: Our analysis indicates that durvalumab consolidation is cost-effective when a discount is applied on its official price. These results suggest that durvalumab may deliver an incremental health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 40-year period, from the Italian National Health Service perspective, providing added value in a potentially curative care setting.

[Establishing the value of new drugs in Italy.] / Quanto vale la negoziazione del prezzo di un nuovo farmaco in Italia?

Italy was used as a case study to investigate the determinants of the difference between the price proposal for medicines submitted by the industry and the final negotiated price (∆P). Data was gathered through the information system used by Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and the time-frame for this analysis is 2013-2017. Factors influencing the delta price were analyzed through a regression analysis. Forty four orphan drugs and 89 new other molecular entities obtained reimbursement in the period considered. Following the negotiation process, prices proposed by Marketing Authorization Holders (MAH) were lowered during the negotiation process by 25.1% and 28.6% on average for orphan drugs and other molecules respectively. The price reduction was higher for innovative drugs (-32.2%). Statistically significant determinants associated to higher price reduction were: i) the implementation of a product specific monitoring registry, ii) the negotiation of a financial-based (FB) Managed Entry Agreement, iii) a target population larger than 20,000 patients, iv) an expected National Health Service expenditure larger than € 200 million. The impact of some variables on the delta price was predictable (e.g. for drugs with an expected higher budget impact and a larger target population), others were more surprising (e.g. a significant price reduction for "innovative" drugs). The implementation of FB agreements, which often rely on confidential arrangements, was one of the determinants with higher impact on price reduction.

Patient access to oral nutritional supplements: Which policies count?

OBJECTIVES: Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) represent a cost-effective method for treating malnutrition. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of public policies on patient access to ONS, using the Italian regionalized health care system as a case study, subsequently compared with the centralized British National Health Service. METHODS: Regional policies in the nine largest Italian regions and British policies were gathered through a literature review; interviews with officers responsible for clinical nutrition policies at the regional level in Italy were also conducted. Total ONS regional sales in Italy were gathered from industry sources. RESULTS: Regulation by Italian regions focused on patient access and local prescribing issues (facilities and specialists allowed to prescribe reimbursed ONS, clinical pathways for malnutrition or disease-related malnutrition, length of prescriptions, and distribution of ONS). British policies focused on organizational issues (clinical governance through multidisciplinary Nutrition Support Teams, Nutrition Steering Committees and Clinical Commissioning Groups), education and referral by health care professionals. Neither per capita reimbursed ONS expenditure nor the proportion covered by public funds seem dependent on policies implemented at the regional level in Italy. There is no cutting-edge evidence that British policies produced broader diffusion of ONS, but they appear to have standardized their use within a more homogenous framework. CONCLUSION: As no clear relation between regional policies and variation in patient access to ONS emerges in Italy, national policies should be encouraged to enhance awareness of malnutrition among health care professionals and encourage the diffusion of multidisciplinary nutrition teams in health care organizations.

Implementation of Value-based Pricing for Medicines.

Value-based pricing (VBP) is well established in markets for common goods and services, but wide consensus on VBP for pharmaceuticals is lacking. In principle, VBP implies that prices are mainly driven by a drug's value (value for money) and that the impact on budget (sustainability) is a second-order driver of price regulation. Although the literature provides descriptive analyses on regulations governing medicine price negotiation, there are few insights on whether and how price negotiation regulations have been implemented. The goal of this article was to cover this information gap for 5 European countries and the United States. VBP has been applied according to two models: (1) direct models in which cost-effectiveness is a driver; and (2) indirect, multi-attribute models characterized by greater discretion on the integration between the different value domains and the evaluation of consistency between costs and value. In these models, cost-effectiveness is not a driver. In addition, it is hard to evaluate within these models the actual implementation of VBP. Identifying whether and how VBP is applied requires a clear predefined link between added value and the premium price, as well as transparency in the way added value is converted into a premium price. In general, for these countries, it remains difficult to determine whether pricing is mostly driven by value (value-for-money) or impact on budget (sustainability). In instances in which thresholds on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio are used, it becomes easier to understand whether VBP has been implemented. If VBP relies on a multi-criteria approach, greater transparency on which criteria have been used to assess a new drug and how they have been converted into a reasonable price may help in understanding whether a value-based approach has been used.