Pilot approach to analyzing patient and citizen involvement in health technology assessment in four diverse low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) striving to achieve universal health coverage, the involvement of different stakeholders in formal or informal ways in health technology assessment (HTA) must be culturally and socially relevant and acceptable. Challenges may be different from those seen in high-income countries. In this article, we aimed to pilot a questionnaire for uncovering the context-related aspects of patient and citizen involvement (PCI) in LMICs, collecting experiences encountered with PCI, and identifying opportunities for patients and citizens toward contributing to local decision- and policy-making processes related to health technologies. METHODS: Through a collaborative, international multi-stakeholder initiative, a questionnaire was developed for describing each LMIC's healthcare system context and the emergence of opportunities for PCI relating to HTA. The questionnaire was piloted in the first set of countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa). RESULTS: The questionnaire was successfully applied across four diverse LMICs, which are at different stages of using HTA to inform decision making. Only in Brazil, formal ways of PCI have been defined. In the other countries, there is informal influence that is contingent upon the engagement level of patient and citizen advocacy groups (PCAGs), usually strongest in areas such as HIV/AIDS, TB, oncology, or rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire can be used to analyze the options for patients and citizens to participate in HTA or healthcare decision making. It will be rolled out to more LMICs to describe the requirements and opportunities for PCI in the context of LMICs and to identify possible routes and methodologies for devising a more systematic and formalized PCI in LMICs.

External Reference Pricing for Pharmaceuticals-A Survey and Literature Review to Describe Best Practices for Countries With Expanding Healthcare Coverage.

BACKGROUND: Countries with expanding healthcare coverage (CEHCs) increasingly use external reference pricing (ERP) for pharmaceuticals. The ERP policies must aim to optimize efficiency, minimize disturbances, and maximize access to effective therapies for all patients. OBJECTIVE: This research aims to deduce best practices for prudent ERP regulations from past experiences and currently applied policies and to guide policymakers in CEHCs in implementing robust ERP policies. METHODS: The literature was reviewed for methods and effects of ERP for pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical pricing experts from Asia, the Middle East, Russia, and South Africa were surveyed for current approaches to ERP in their respective countries. RESULTS: Key determinants of ERP relate to scope, number, and choice of reference countries; price definitions; computation rules; frequency; and stringency of applying ERP. The scarce evidence shows that ERP seems to lead to narrower price windows with the risk of reducing prices in high-price countries and raising prices in low-price countries. Moreover, launch delays and indirect price effects are often observed. The ERP policies in CEHCs are often applied in isolation, not always in a consistent and transparent manner, neglecting its indirect effects. CONCLUSION: Policymakers should consider a set of requirements when introducing ERP, including clear definitions and decision criteria in full transparency. External reference pricing should inform and serve as a benchmark for pricing decisions, rather than being used as the sole pricing mechanism. External reference pricing is primarily a tool to support decisions regarding on-patent pharmaceuticals, and for off-patent products, competition may prove more effective in reducing prices than ERP.

Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries.

AIM: Criteria weighting is a key element of multicriteria decision analysis that is becoming extensively used in healthcare decision-making. In our narrative review we describe the advantages and disadvantages of various weighting methods. METHODS: An assessment of the eight identified primary criteria weighting methods was compiled on domains including their resource requirements, and potential for bias. RESULTS: In general, we found more complex methods to have less potential for bias; however, resource intensity and general participant burden is greater for these methods. CONCLUSION: The selection of the most appropriate method depends on the decision-making context. The simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART) method combined with swing-weighting technique and the analytic hierarchy process methods may be the most feasible approaches for low- and middle-income countries.

Development of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for off-patent pharmaceuticals - an application on improving tender decision making in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Off-patent pharmaceuticals (OPPs) hold vital importance in meeting public health objectives, especially in developing countries where resources are limited. OPPs are comprised of off-patent originals, branded generics and unbranded generics; nonetheless, these products are not identical and often there are differences in their equivalence, manufacturing quality standards and reliability of supply. This necessitates reconsideration of the lowest price policy objective in pharmaceutical decision making. The aim of this study was to develop a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework through a pilot workshop to inform the national procurement of OPPs in Indonesia. METHODS: An initial list of potentially relevant criteria was identified based on previous work and a literature review. In a 2-day pilot policy workshop, twenty local experts representing different stakeholder groups and decision-making bodies selected the final criteria, approved the scoring function for each criterion, and assigned weights to each criterion. RESULTS: An MCDA framework was proposed for OPP drug decision making in developing countries, which included price and 8 non-price criteria. Based on the pilot policy workshop 6 + 1 criteria were considered relevant for Indonesia: pharmaceutical price (40% weight), manufacturing quality (18.8%), equivalence with the reference product (12.2%), product stability and drug formulation (12.2%), reliability of drug supply (8.4%), real world clinical or economic outcomes, such as adherence or non-drug costs (4.2%) and pharmacovigilance (3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the pilot policy workshop, other criteria apart from price need to be strengthened in the tendering process. The introduction of additional criteria for OPP procurement in an MCDA framework creates incentives for manufacturers to invest into improved manufacturing standards, equivalence proof, product quality, reliability of supply or even additional real-world data collection, which ultimately may result in more health gain for the society.

Guidance toward the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis framework in developing countries.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used in health care mainly because it moves decision-making from ad hoc to an evidence-based and comprehensive process. Developing countries with more restricted financial and human research capacities, however, should consider their own methods of MCDA development and implementation. Areas covered: An MCDA framework to improve procurement decisions of off-patent pharmaceuticals was developed for developing countries and adapted to Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Vietnam during three policy workshops. Based on the experience of these workshops and one joint workshop with international experts and decision makers from multiple developing countries, general recommendations were formulated on how to implement MCDA specifically in developing countries. We provide 17 practical MCDA implementation recommendations in four major areas, including (1) MCDA objectives; (2) technical considerations of MCDA tool; (3) development and customization of MCDA tool and (4) policy implementation of MCDA in decision-making. Expert commentary: These practical MCDA recommendations for developing countries contribute to feasible, transparent, stepwise, iterative and standardized decision-making in health care.

Shaping Pharmaceutical Tenders for Effectiveness and Sustainability in Countries with Expanding Healthcare Coverage.

Policy makers in countries, aiming to build and expand their healthcare systems and coverage, need effective procedures to support the most efficient use of limited financial resources. Tendering is commonly deployed to minimize and fix the purchasing price for the contract duration, especially for off-patent pharmaceuticals. While tenders can reduce acquisition costs, they may also expose the healthcare systems to risks including drug shortages, quality trade-offs, and ultimately, compromised patient health outcomes. Careful planning is therefore required. The effectiveness and impact of tendering were examined in different healthcare settings to establish good tender practices and to develop guidance for tender stakeholders in countries with expanding healthcare coverage for the effective conduct. The literature was reviewed for tender practices and outcomes in all countries, and tender experts from one multi-national pharmaceutical company in 17 countries with expanding healthcare coverage were surveyed on current tender practices. Tendering is a common practice for multisource pharmaceuticals in most countries worldwide. However, countries with expanding healthcare coverage specifically are vulnerable to the risks of defective tendering practices. Risk factors include non-transparent tender practices, a lack of consistency, unclear tender award criteria, a focus on lowest price only, single-winner tendering, and generally, a lack of impact monitoring. If well planned, managed, and conducted, tenders can be advantageous. Countries with expanding healthcare coverage should approach tenders strategically to achieve the desired improvements in healthcare. The good tender practices derived from this study may guide policy makers and purchasers in countries with expanding healthcare coverage on how to expand access to healthcare at an affordable cost. These include the use of multiple selection criteria and performance monitoring. Plain Language Summary Decision makers in countries aiming to expand their healthcare systems must best use the limited money available for healthcare. Tendering is commonly deployed for pharmaceuticals produced by multiple manufacturers (so-called multisource pharmaceuticals), to choose the product with the lowest price. Through tenders, purchasers request offers from suppliers for the needed products.The ultimate purpose of our research was to develop a guidance on robust tender processes. Therefore, we reviewed the literature to examine the effectiveness and impact of current tendering practices. In addition, we conducted a survey among tender experts from one pharmaceutical company in 17 countries with expanding healthcare coverage.In both the survey and the literature review, we confirmed that worldwide, tendering is a common practice for multisource pharmaceuticals. However, defective tendering practices may increase the vulnerability for some risks including abuse due to intransparent processes, lack of consistency, unclear tender award criteria, a focus on lowest price only, single winner tendering, and generally, a lack of impact monitoring after the end of the tender process.Hence, tenders must be well planned, managed, and conducted to be advantageous. Countries with defined and transparent tender frameworks and processes will be better equipped to achieve the desired improvements in the healthcare systems. 'Good tender practices' include the clear definition of requirements to be used as selection criteria in addition to acquisition costs, and for monitoring of the tender success. 'Good tender practices' may help to manage cost and improve healthcare at the same time.

An Evidence Framework for Off-Patent Pharmaceutical Review for Health Technology Assessment in Emerging Markets.

OBJECTIVE: This article introduces an Evidence Framework for Off-Patent Pharmaceutical Review (EFOR), which establishes value-based criteria in a template that manufacturers use to provide evidence showing how their products meet those criteria. Health authorities in emerging markets can then use the evidence presented in the EFOR to evaluate off-patent pharmaceuticals (OPPs) in a consistent, transparent, and evidence-based manner to support policy decisions, including pricing, reimbursement, formulary listing, and drug procurement. METHODS: A literature search found no multi-criteria evidence framework for evaluating OPPs in emerging markets. An International Outcomes Research Board (IORB) of academia and industry experts conducted extensive research, meetings, and workshops to define high-priority criteria to incorporate into an evidence-based health technology assessment (HTA) tool using the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique. The resulting framework was further tailored for country-specific needs in workshops in three emerging countries (Kazakhstan, Vietnam, and Indonesia). RESULTS: The IORB defined nine criteria four categories (Product, Manufacturing, Service, and Value Assessment), which OPP manufacturers can use to provide evidence for reimbursement and health policy decision making. Then the IORB developed the EFOR as a base case document, which can be adapted and used as a template by health authorities in emerging countries. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging countries have a significant need for an HTA tool that balances affordability with accurate evidence showing the value differentiation of OPPs. The value attributes in this setting often are different from those in developed markets, which emphasize new products and have high regulation and manufacturing standards. The EFOR is an easy-to-use, adaptable framework that emerging countries can use to increase the consistency, transparency, and effectiveness of drug decision making. The open source EFOR is available as Supplemental Materials.

Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Simple Scoring as an Evidence-based HTA Methodology for Evaluating Off-Patent Pharmaceuticals (OPPs) in Emerging Markets.

Off-patent pharmaceuticals (OPPs) represent more than 60% of the pharmaceutical market in many emerging countries, where they are frequently evaluated primarily on cost rather than with health technology assessment. OPPs are assumed to be identical to the originators. Branded and unbranded generic versions can, however, vary from the originator in active pharmaceutical ingredients, dosage, consistency formulation, excipients, manufacturing processes, and distribution, for example. These variables can alter the efficacy and safety of the product, negatively impacting both the anticipated cost savings and the population's health. In addition, many health care systems lack the resources or expertise to evaluate such products, and current assessment methods can be complex and difficult to adapt to a health system's needs. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) simple scoring is an evidence-based health technology assessment methodology for evaluating OPPs, especially in emerging countries in which resources are limited but decision makers still must balance affordability with factors such as drug safety, level interchangeability, manufacturing site and active pharmaceutical ingredient quality, supply track record, and real-life outcomes. MCDA simple scoring can be applied to pharmaceutical pricing, reimbursement, formulary listing, and drug procurement. In November 2015, a workshop was held at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting in Milan to refine and prioritize criteria that can be used in MCDA simple scoring for OPPs, resulting in an example MCDA process and 22 prioritized criteria that health care systems in emerging countries can easily adapt to their own decision-making processes.