Innovations in pharmaceutical policies and learnings for sustainable access to affordable medicines.

Sustainable access to affordable medicines remains a public health issue globally, including for high-income countries. To foster the debate on avenues for the future, the fifth PPRI Conference held in Vienna on 25 and 26 April 2024 will offer a forum for the debate on innovating pharmaceutical policymaking to develop and implement futureproof policy options, which are able to address current and future challenges. The Conference invites a broad audience of stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, payers, patients, industry and health professionals. The conference topics are organised in three strands: Strand 1 on 'Local challenges, global learnings' aims to contribute to lively discussions on the implementation of pharmaceutical policies across the globe. Best-practice examples will be presented, supplemented by case studies of less effective policies which can offer rich learnings. Strand 2 on 'Strengthening the evidence base' is the place for presentations and discussions on topics such as health technology assessments, managed entry agreements and real-world data. Strand 3 'Futureproofing pharmaceutical policies' is particularly dedicated to explore innovation in policymaking to achieve sustainable access to affordable medicines.

European support for improving global health systems and policies

The European Union (EU) is one of the world’s largest markets, aid donors, health care innovators and tradingpowers. As such, many of its policies affect global health. EU policies affect global health directly, as with overseas aid, trade policy or support for the World Health Organization (WHO). They also affect global health indirectly, as with the many internally focused policies which affect health and health policy options in other countries, such as research priorities or medicines regulation. The extensive range of policy areas that touch global health mean that the EU has a wide range of policy tools which inevitably shape global health, and which the EU can use intentionally to shape health governance and outcomes worldwide.The broad shape of any coherent strategy or approach to global health, in the complex institutional environment ofEurope, must align priorities with tools, identifying what the EU wants to achieve in the global health sphere andwhich policy tools will be best suited to have the desired effects. Alignment requires consideration of the differentways in which countries near the EU already relate to it (e.g. accession candidates) and should include anappreciation of which actors should use the different policy tools, with respect to subsidiarity as well as the advantages of joint action in some areas. The review of EU instruments clearly shows the immense scale of the impact of existing EU policies on global health, and the potential that a coherent approach could have to strengthen global health governance and improve global health policies and outcomes. The EU affects global health through many different policies; the question is how, when and by whom these policies will be used for global health.

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care. METHODS: This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment-databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development.

Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria.

Purpose: To elaborate a concept for implementing digital health applications (DiHA), including prioritisation criteria (PC) for the Austrian context and an overview of available prioritised DiHAs. Methods: Based on European DiHA-listings and input by Austrian experts, a categorised meta-directory of DiHAs was created. PC were developed to reflect, inter alia, the provisions of the Austrian General Insurance Act, and were applied to the meta-directory to identify DiHAs potentially relevant for the Austrian statutory health insurance. An iterative process with expert involvement was used to tailor an existing reimbursement framework to the Austrian setting. Results: The meta-directory comprised 132 DiHAs. Developed PC focused on plausibility (German language) and legal aspects (treatment/monitoring of chronic conditions), while other criteria (e.g. interoperability standards) were considered optional. After applying the PC, 38 DiHAs were potentially relevant in the Austrian setting. Of these, only seven supported current health record integration. Most of the prioritised DiHAs reported on CE marking (29/38) and data protection (35/38), while reporting on risk class (10/38) and technical algorithms (0/38) was sparse. For DiHA reimbursement, a four-step process is proposed: identification (ideally based on needs assessment); filtering based on PC; review of technical, regulatory and evidentiary requirements; and health technology assessment. Conclusion: The proposed concept can offer guidance for policy makers (e.g., on prioritising available DiHAs) and may further foster scientific debate with regard to DiHA implementation. Further discussion on how to fully incorporate regulatory, technical, and evidentiary criteria is needed. Attention should be given to national implementation requirements, re-assessment criteria, and appropriate remuneration schemes.

Health and care data: approaches to data linkage for evidence-informed policy

An indispensable prerequisite for answering research questions in health services research is the availability and accessibility of comprehensive, high quality data. It can be assumed that health services research in the comingyears will be increasingly based on data linkage, i.e., the linking, or connecting, of several data sources based on suitable common key variables. A range of approaches to data collection, storage, linkage and availability exists across countries, particularly for secondary research purposes (i.e., the use of data initially collected for other purposes), such as health systems research. The main goal of this review is to develop an overview of, and gain insights into, current approaches to linking data sources in the context of health services research, with the view to inform policy, based on existing practices in high-income countries in Europe and beyond. In doing so, another objective is to provide lessons for countries looking for possible or alternative approaches to data linkage. Thirteen country case studies of data linkage approaches were selected and analyzed. Rather than being comprehensive, this review aimed to identify varied and potentially useful case studies to showcase different approaches to data linkage worldwide. A conceptual framework was developed to guide the selection and description of case studies. Information was first identified and collected from publicly available sources and a profile was then created for each country and each case study; these profiles were forwarded to appropriate country experts for validation and completion.

Benefit Assessment and Reimbursement of Digital Health Applications: Concepts for Setting Up a New System for Public Coverage.

In Germany, some digital health applications (DiHA) became reimbursable through the statutory health insurance system with the adoption of the Digital Healthcare Act in 2019. Approaches and concepts for the German care context were developed in an iterative process, based on existing concepts from international experience. A DiHA categorization was developed that could be used as a basis to enable the creation of a reimbursed DiHA repository, and to derive evidence requirements for coverage and reimbursement for each DiHA. The results provide an overview of a possible classification of DiHA as well as approaches to assessment and evaluation. The structure of remuneration and pricing in connection with the formation of groups is demonstrated.

Exploring variation of coverage and access to dental care for adults in 11 European countries: a vignette approach.

BACKGROUND: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach. METHODS: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists. RESULTS: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health care.

Reimbursement decisions for medical services in Austria: an analysis of influencing factors for the hospital individual services catalogue between 2008 and 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the (evidence-based) reimbursement process of hospital individual services, (2) evaluate the accordance between evidence-based recommendations and reimbursement decision of individual services and (3) elaborate potential aspects that play a role in the decision-making process in Austria. METHOD: The reimbursement process is described based on selected relevant sources such as official documents. Evidence-based recommendations and subsequent reimbursement decisions for the annual maintenance of the hospital individual service catalogue in Austria between 2008 and 2020 were analysed using a mixed methods approach, encompassing descriptive statistics and a focus group with Austrian decision makers. RESULTS: 118 evidence-based recommendations were analysed. There were 93 (78.8%) negative and 25 (21.2%) positive evidence-based recommendations. In total, 107 out of 118 evidence-based recommendations (90.1%) did not lead to a deviating reimbursement decision. We identified six aspects that may have played a role in the decision-making process for the annual maintenance of the hospital individual service catalogue, with clinical evidence being the most notable. Further aspects included quality assurance/organisational aspects (i.e., structural quality assurance), costs (if comparable to already existing medical services, not: cost-effectiveness), procedural aspects (e.g., if certain criteria for adoption have not been met formally through the proposals), "other countries" (i.e., taking into account how other countries decided) and situational aspects (such as the COVID-19 pandemic). CONCLUSIONS: There is good accordance between evidence-based recommendations and reimbursement decisions regarding hospital individual services in Austria. Beyond clinical evidence, organisational aspects seem to be considered often with regard to quality assurance but costs do not appear to play a major role. The Austrian system has mechanisms in place that can restrict widespread adoption of novel hospital individual services with uncertain clinical benefits. Future studies could investigate how well these mechanisms work and how they compare to other health systems in Europe.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. RESULTS: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. CONCLUSION: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. RESULTS: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. CONCLUSION: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

HIT-6 and EQ-5D-5L in patients with migraine: assessment of common latent constructs and development of a mapping algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess whether there is a conceptual overlap between the questionnaires HIT-6 and EQ-5D and to develop a mapping algorithm allowing the conversion of HIT-6 to EQ-5D utility scores for Germany. METHODS: This study used data from an ongoing randomised controlled trial for patients suffering from migraine. We assessed the conceptual overlap between the two instruments with correlation matrices and exploratory factor analysis. Linear regression, tobit, mixture, and two-part models were used for mapping, accounting for repeated measurements, tenfold cross-validation was conducted to validate the models. RESULTS: We included 1010 observations from 410 patients. The EQ-5D showed a substantial ceiling effect (47.3% had the highest score) but no floor effect, while the HIT-6 showed a very small ceiling effect (0.5%). The correlation between the instruments' total scores was moderate (- 0.30), and low to moderate among each domain (0.021-0.227). The exploratory factor analysis showed insufficient conceptual overlap between the instruments, as they load on different factors. Thus, there is reason to believe that the instruments' domains do not capture the same latent constructs. To facilitate future mapping, we provide coefficients and a variance-covariance matrix for the preferred model, a two-part model with the total HIT-6 score as the explanatory variable. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the German EQ-5D and the HIT-6 lack the conceptual overlap needed for appropriate mapping. Thus, the estimated mapping algorithms should only be used as a last resort for estimating utilities to be employed in economic evaluations.

Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure.

Introduction: Biosimilar medicines are considered promising alternatives to new biologicals with high price tags. The extent of savings resulting from biosimilar use depends on their price and uptake, which are largely shaped by pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies. This article informs about different policy measures employed by European countries to design the biologicals market and explores potential savings from the increased use of biosimilar medicines in Germany. Methods: Policy measures that target the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines were identified based on a prefilled questionnaire survey with public authorities in 16 European countries, who were the members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information network (July 2020). Potential savings that could have been generated in Germany if different measures identified in the surveyed countries had been implemented were calculated for six publicly funded biological molecules. Price data of the Pharma Price Information service and German consumption data for 2018 were used for the calculation of five scenarios. Results: Several countries use a price link policy, setting the biosimilar price as a percentage of the price of the reference biological. Also lowering the price of the reference biological upon market entry of a biosimilar is less frequently used. While tendering of biosimilar medicines in the inpatient setting is the norm, it is rarely employed for biosimilars in outpatient use. Reference price systems and INN prescribing of medicines are the commonly used policy measures in the off-patent market, but some countries define exemptions for biologicals. Substituting biosimilars at the pharmacy level is rather an exception. Potential savings in Germany ranged from 5% (simple price link) to 55% (prices at the level of other countries) for the six studied molecules. Conclusion: Despite some differences, there are discernible tendencies across European countries with regard to their applications of certain policy measures targeting the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines. The potential for savings of some of these policies was clearly demonstrated. Monitoring and evaluation of these rather recent measures is key for obtaining a more comprehensive picture of their impact.

Regulating the health workforce in Europe: implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the European free movement zone, various mechanisms aim to harmonize how the competence of physicians and nurses is developed and maintained to facilitate the cross-country movement of professionals. This commentary addresses these mechanisms and discusses their implications during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing lessons for future policy. It argues that EU-wide regulatory mechanisms should be reviewed to ensure that they provide an adequate foundation for determining competence and enabling health workforce flexibility during health system shocks. Currently, EU regulation focuses on the automatic recognition of the primary education of physicians and nurses. New, flexible mechanisms should be developed for specializations, such as intensive or emergency care. Documenting new skills, such as the ones acquired during rapid training in the pandemic, in a manner that is comparable across countries should be explored, both for usual practice and in light of outbreak preparedness. Initiatives to strengthen continuing education and professional development should be supported further. Funding under the EU4Health programme should be dedicated to this endeavour, along with revisiting the scope of necessary skills following the experience of COVID-19. Mechanisms for cross-country sharing of information on violations of good practice standards should be maintained and strengthened to enable agile reactions when the need for professional mobility becomes urgent.

Portable continuous wave Doppler ultrasound for primary healthcare in South Africa: can the EUnetHTA Core Model guide evaluation before technology adoption?

BACKGROUND: This study had a threefold aim: to test the value of stakeholder involvement in HTA to reduce evidence gaps and interpret findings; and to assess a medical device by applying the EUnetHTA Core Model (CM) in South Africa and thus ultimately provide a first overview of evidence for potential widespread adoption of the technology in a primary health care (PHC) setting. Used in primary healthcare setting for obstetric use, the technology under assessment is a low-cost continuous wave Doppler ultrasound (DUS). METHODS: The scoping of the assessment was defined by involving policy makers in selecting the domains and corresponding questions relevant to the ultrasound and its use. Additionally, hospital managers were invited to respond to dichotomous questions on the criteria for procurement. To substantiate evidence obtained from an initial literature review, different stakeholders were identified and consulted. The evidence generated fromall steps was used to populate the high-ranked assessment elements of the CM. RESULTS: The HTA on continuous-wave DUS incorporated the evidence on organizational, ethical, and social value of its use together with effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the technology. The domains on "health problem" and "safety" had a higher rank than the rest of the nine domains. Unexplained fetal mortality is the largest single contributor to perinatal deaths in South Africa. Pregnant women in PHC setting were examined using a continuous-wave DUS, after their routine antenatal visit. The healthcare professionals interviewed, indicated the benefit in the use of continuous-wave DUS in the PHC setting and the need for training. CONCLUSIONS: Collection and generation of evidence based on the HTA CM and the chosen decision criteria provided a generalized but structured guidance on the methodology. Several questions were not applicable for the technology and the context of its use and elimination of those that are inappropriate for the African context, resulted in a pragmatic solution. Engaging and consulting local stakeholders was imperative to understand the context, reduce evidence gaps, and address the uncertainties in the evidence, ultimately paving the way for technology adoption. Given the ongoing studies and the evolving evidence base, the potential of this technology should be reassessed.