Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effectiveness compared with alternative treatment(s) plays an important role in many jurisdictions in determining the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals. This type of assessment is often referred to as a relative effectiveness assessment (REA) and is carried out by many jurisdictions. Increased sharing of information across jurisdictions may save costs and reduce duplication. The objective of this study was to explore the main similarities and differences in the major methodological aspects of REA in multiple jurisdictions. METHODS: Data were gathered with a standardized data extraction form by searching publicly available information and by eliciting information from representatives at relevant organizations. RESULTS: Of the initially included 35 jurisdictions, data were gathered for 29 jurisdictions. There seem to be substantial similarities on the choice of the comparator, the role of indirect comparisons, and preferred end points in REAs (except for the use of health state utilities). Jurisdictions, however, differ in whether effectiveness (usual circumstances of health care practice) is estimated in case no (comparative) effectiveness data are available and how this is done. CONCLUSION: Some important methodological aspects for REA are approached in a similar way in many jurisdictions, indicating that collaboration on assessments may be feasible. Enhanced collaboration in the development of methods and best practices for REA between jurisdictions will be a necessary first step. Important topics for developing best practice are indirect comparisons and how to handle the gap between efficacy and effectiveness data in case good quality comparative effectiveness data are not yet available at the time of reimbursement decisions.

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.