Alternative payment models for durable and potentially curative therapies: The case of gene therapy for haemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of durable and potentially curative cell and gene therapies (also known as advanced therapy medicinal products) with high price tags is challenging conventional health care payment systems. Among these are gene therapies in various phases of development for haemophilia A and B. The emergence of these therapies comes with clinical and economic uncertainties for payers, providers, patients, and manufacturers. These include uncertainties about expression of the intended physiological response, patient outcomes, and duration of treatment effect, along with potentially high upfront costs, variable additional costs, and uncertainties about uptake of the therapy among indicated patient populations. These clinical and economic uncertainties raise interest among payers, providers, and manufacturers in risk-sharing arrangements, including alternative payment models (APMs). SUMMARY: APMs differ from traditional fee-for-service payment for health care. For example, some APMs are designed to reward clinicians and provider organizations for delivering high-quality and cost-effective care. The APMs described here, outcomes-based models (or value- or performance-based models) and finance-based models, are designed to mitigate or otherwise manage financial risks associated with health care payment, including instances in which patient outcomes for costly therapies are uncertain. We examine how such APMs may be applicable in the context of emerging gene therapies for haemophilia A, including considerations in determining whether any particular APM may be most suitable. KEY POINTS OF CONSIDERATION: Gene therapies for haemophilia are among the emerging durable and potentially curative cell and gene therapies with high price tags that are challenging conventional payment systems. These therapies present clinical and economic uncertainties for payers, providers, patients, and manufacturers, including regarding expression of the intended physiological response, duration of treatment effect, patient outcomes, potentially high upfront costs and variable additional costs, and uptake among potentially indicated, diverse patient subgroups. These uncertainties raise interest among payers, manufacturers, and providers in risk-sharing arrangements, including alternative payment models (APMs) such as various outcomes-based and finance-based models. This paper describes a taxonomy of APMs. Then, for the particular context of gene therapy for haemophilia A, we present a set of factors to be considered when determining whether an APM risk-sharing arrangement may be appropriate for a given gene therapy, and, if so, which APM may be most suitable. [Correction added on 21 February 2022, after first online publication: the 'Key Points of Consideration' have been added in this version.].

Preparing for tomorrow: Defining a future agenda.

Gene therapy will be the first long-term therapy with potential to produce a functional cure for haemophilia. As a single dose ('once-and-done') therapy with significant uncertainties regarding impact and duration of factor expression, flexibility and adaptability of (1) value framework, (2) health technology assessment (HTA) methodology, and (3) development of alternative payment models will be needed for adoption of this new technology and to facilitate transparent decision-making to support its implementation. The responsibility for each of these currently lies with distinct entities, underscoring a need for enhanced collaboration between all stakeholders, as expanded engagement by key stakeholders will be critical to optimizing the assessment of value, enabling an optimised approach to HTA, and opening receptivity to new and innovative payment models. This supplement issue describes important considerations for a gene therapy 'toolkit', highlighting key considerations for each of the aforementioned tools, which will be useful for guiding decision-making regarding gene therapy as a novel treatment modality. In this article, we outline how the tools presented in this supplement can be applied as part of a framework to address the requirements of the relevant stakeholders, including payers, manufacturers, treaters, and patients. The paper also provides an illustrative example of how to understand the features of alternative payment models depending on the organization of and payment for healthcare.

A Proposal for Value-Based Managed Entry Agreements in an Environment of Technological Change and Economic Challenge for Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems.

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are beginning to reach European markets, and questions are being asked about their value for patients and how healthcare systems should pay for them. OBJECTIVES: To identify and discuss potential challenges of ATMPs in view of current health technology assessment (HTA) methodology-specifically economic evaluation methods-in Europe as it relates to ATMPs, and to suggest potential solutions to these challenges. METHODS: An Expert Panel reviewed current HTA principles and practices in relation to the specific characteristics of ATMPs. RESULTS: Three key topics were identified and prioritised for discussion-uncertainty, discounting, and health outcomes and value. The panel discussed that evidence challenges linked to increased uncertainty may be mitigated by collection of follow-on data, use of value of information analysis, and/or outcomes-based contracts. For discount rates, an international, multi-disciplinary forum should be established to consider the economic, social and ethical implications of the choice of rate. Finally, consideration of the feasibility of assessing the value of ATMPs beyond health gain may also be key for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: ATMPs face a challenge in demonstrating their value within current HTA frameworks. Consideration of current HTA principles and practices with regards to the specific characteristics of ATMPs and continued dialogue will be key to ensuring appropriate market access. CLASSIFICATION CODE: I.

Studying the Hurdles of Insulin Prescription (SHIP): development, scoring and initial validation of a new self-administered questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Although insulin therapy is well-accepted by symptomatic diabetic patients, it is still often delayed in less severe patients, in whom injectable insulin remains under-used. A better understanding of patients' perception of insulin would eventually help physicians to adopt the most appropriate dialogue when having to motivate patients to initiate or to intensify insulin injection. METHODS: The 'Studying the Hurdles of Insulin Prescription' (SHIP) questionnaire was developed based on a list of concepts derived from three diabetic patients' focus groups, and was included into two cross-sectional studies with similar design: SHIP Oral study and SHIP Premix study. Diabetic patients treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA; n = 1,494) and patients already treated with insulin (n = 1,150) completed the questionnaire at baseline, 6- and 12 months. Psychometric properties were assessed: 1) structure analysis by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation, 2) internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and 3) concurrent validity (Spearman correlation coefficients with the Fear of Self-Injecting (FSI) score of the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-testing Questionnaire. Reluctance/motivation towards insulin was assessed. Scores' ability to predict patients' insulin injection reluctance/motivation and initiation/intensification was evaluated with the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC). RESULTS: PCA analysis confirmed the structure of the 14 items grouped into 3 dimensions: 'acceptance and motivation', 'fear and constraints', and 'restraints and barriers' towards insulin injection. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70); concurrent validity was good. The three scores were significantly predictive of patients' reluctance/motivation towards insulin injection initiation, as they were of patients' actual switch, except for the 'restraints and barriers' dimension. 'Acceptance and motivation' and 'fears and constraints' dimensions were also significantly predictive of patients' reluctance/motivation towards insulin intensification. By the end of the 12-month study, 179 of the initially OHA-treated patients had started insulin injections; 186 of the patients already treated with insulin had increased their injections. CONCLUSION: The SHIP questionnaire provides reliable and valid assessment of diabetic patients' attitude towards insulin and injections. The predictive power of scores for patients' reluctance/motivation and actual treatment decisions demonstrates encouraging potential for further application in clinical practice.

Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care.

With finite resources, healthcare payers must make difficult choices regarding spending and the ethical distribution of funds. Here, we describe some of the ethical issues surrounding inequity in healthcare in nine major European countries, using cancer care as an example. To identify relevant studies, we conducted a systematic literature search. The results of the literature review suggest that although prevention, access to early diagnosis, and radiotherapy are key factors associated with good outcomes in oncology, public and political attention often focusses on the availability of pharmacological treatments. In some countries this focus may divert funding towards cancer drugs, for example through specific cancer drugs funds, leading to reduced expenditure on other areas of cancer care, including prevention, and potentially on other diseases. In addition, as highly effective, expensive agents are developed, the use of value-based approaches may lead to unacceptable impacts on health budgets, leading to a potential need to re-evaluate current cost-effectiveness thresholds. We anticipate that the question of how to fund new therapies equitably will become even more challenging in the future, with the advent of expensive, innovative, breakthrough treatments in other therapeutic areas.