Corrigendum to "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/9996193.].

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East.

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Comparison of drug prescribing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national European study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on health care, with disruption to routine clinical care. Our aim was to describe changes in prescription drugs dispensing in the primary and outpatient sectors during the first year of the pandemic across Europe. METHODS: We used routine administrative data on dispensed medicines in eight European countries (five whole countries, three represented by one region each) from January 2017 to March 2021 to compare the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic with the preceding 3 years. RESULTS: In the 10 therapeutic subgroups with the highest dispensed volumes across all countries/regions the relative changes between the COVID-19 period and the year before were mostly of a magnitude similar to changes between previous periods. However, for drugs for obstructive airway diseases the changes in the COVID-19 period were stronger in several countries/regions. In all countries/regions a decrease in dispensed DDDs of antibiotics for systemic use (from -39.4% in Romagna to -14.2% in Scotland) and nasal preparations (from -34.4% in Lithuania to -5.7% in Sweden) was observed. We observed a stockpiling effect in the total market in March 2020 in six countries/regions. In Czechia the observed increase was not significant and in Slovenia volumes increased only after the end of the first lockdown. We found an increase in average therapeutic quantity per pack dispensed, which, however, exceeded 5% only in Slovenia, Germany, and Czechia. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this first European cross-national comparison show a substantial decrease in dispensed volumes of antibiotics for systemic use in all countries/regions. The results also indicate that the provision of medicines for common chronic conditions was mostly resilient to challenges faced during the pandemic. However, there were notable differences between the countries/regions for some therapeutic areas.

Challenges and Opportunities With Routinely Collected Data on the Utilization of Cancer Medicines. Perspectives From Health Authority Personnel Across 18 European Countries.

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Pricing and Reimbursement of Patent-Protected Medicines: Challenges and Lessons from South-Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: Efficiency and transparency of pricing and reimbursement (P&R) rules and procedures as well as their implementation in South-eastern Europe (SEE) lag substantially behind Western European practice. Nevertheless, P&R systems in SEE are rarely critically assessed, warranting a detailed and wider-encompassing exploration. OBJECTIVE: Our study provides a comparative assessment of P&R processes for patent-protected medicines in ten SEE countries-EU member states: Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and non-EU countries: Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, North Maceodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. P&R systems are compared and evaluated through a research framework that focuses on: (1) public financing of patent-protected medicines, (2) definition of benefit packages, (3) requirements for the submission of reimbursement dossiers, (4) assessment and appraisal processes, (5) reimbursement decision making, (6) processes that occur post reimbursement, and (7) pricing. The study aims to contribute to the discussion on improving the efficiency and quality of P&R of patent-protected medicines in the region. METHODS: We conducted a non-systematic literature review of published literature, as well as policy briefs and reports on healthcare systems in the SEE region along with legal documents framing the P&R procedures in local languages. The information gathered from these various sources was then discussed and clarified through structured telephone interviews with relevant national experts from each SEE country, mainly current and former senior officials and/or executives of the funding and assessment/ appraisal bodies (total of 20 interviews conducted in late 2019). RESULTS: Capacity building through sharing knowledge and information on successful reforms across borders is an opportunity for SEE countries to further develop their P&R policies and increase (equitable) access to patent-protected medicines (especially expensive medicines), increasing affordability and containing costs. Simple yet robust and systematic decision-making frameworks that rely on international health technology assessment (HTA) procedures and are based on the pursuit of transparency seem to be the most cost-effective approach to strengthening P&R systems in SEE. CONCLUSIONS: Further reforms aiming to develop transparent and robust national decision-making frameworks (including oversight) and build institutional HTA-related and decision-making capacity are awaited in most of SEE countries, especially the non-EU members. In non-EU SEE countries, these efforts could increase access to patent-protected medicines, which is-at the moment-very limited. The EU-member SEE countries operate more developed P&R systems but could further benefit from developing their procedures, oversight and value-for-money assessment toolbox and capacity, hence further improving the transparency and efficiency of procedures that regulate access to patent-protected medicines.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Comparison of Two Different Analgesic Prescription Strategies and Healthcare Systems: Slovenia vs. the Netherlands.

Background: Prescribing practice of pain medication is changing in the Netherlands; opioids are used more often instead of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therefore we aimed to compare the use of pain medication with Slovenia which has stringent prescribing rules for strong opioids. Methods: We conducted a cohort study into national prescription databases of the Netherlands and Slovenia covering pharmacy claims between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019. In the analysis about 17 million Dutch and 2 million Slovenian residents were included. Findings: The use of opioids and NSAIDs was higher in Slovenia than in the Netherlands. More frequent use of opioids in Slovenia could be almost entirely explained by weak opioids (about 6% of the population), whereas they were prescribed 50% less frequently in the Netherlands. The opioid use has increased by about 20% in the Netherlands (4.85 and 6.00% of the population in 2013 and 2018, respectively), and the majority of this increase could be explained by strong opioids (4.05% in 2018), specifically, by oxycodone whose use increased by more than 2-fold between 2013 and 2019. In comparison, oxycodone was seldomly used in Slovenia (about 0.3% of the population received a prescription in a year). Interpretation: When medication use is controlled by stringent prescribing rules, like for strong opioids in Slovenia, the use is lower as compared to when such rules do not exist.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. METHODS: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. CONCLUSIONS: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80-90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 - €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

Ongoing strategies to improve the management of upper respiratory tract infections and reduce inappropriate antibiotic use particularly among lower and middle-income countries: findings and implications for the future.

Introduction: Antibiotics are indispensable to maintaining human health; however, their overuse has resulted in resistant organisms, increasing morbidity, mortality and costs. Increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health threat, resulting in multiple campaigns across countries to improve appropriate antimicrobial use. This includes addressing the overuse of antimicrobials for self-limiting infections, such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), particularly in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where there is the greatest inappropriate use and where antibiotic utilization has increased the most in recent years. Consequently, there is a need to document current practices and successful initiatives in LMICs to improve future antimicrobial use.Methodology: Documentation of current epidemiology and management of URTIs, particularly in LMICs, as well as campaigns to improve future antimicrobial use and their influence where known.Results: Much concern remains regarding the prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics for URTIs among LMICs. This includes considerable self-purchasing, up to 100% of pharmacies in some LMICs. However, multiple activities are now ongoing to improve future use. These incorporate educational initiatives among all key stakeholder groups, as well as legislation and other activities to reduce self-purchasing as part of National Action Plans (NAPs). Further activities are still needed however. These include increased physician and pharmacist education, starting in medical and pharmacy schools; greater monitoring of prescribing and dispensing practices, including the development of pertinent quality indicators; and targeted patient information and health education campaigns. It is recognized that such activities are more challenging in LMICs given more limited resources and a lack of healthcare professionals.Conclusion: Initiatives will grow across LMICs to reduce inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antimicrobials for URTIs as part of NAPs and other activities, and these will be monitored.

Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab.

The potential benefits of early patient access to new medicines in areas of high unmet medical need are recognised, but uncertainties concerning effectiveness, safety and added value when new medicines are authorised, and subsequently funded based on initial preliminary data only, have important implications. In 2016 olaratumab received accelerated conditional approval from both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma, based on the claims of a substantial reduction in the risk of death with an 11.8-month improvement in median overall survival in a phase II trial in combination with doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin alone. The failure to confirm these benefits in the post-authorisation pivotal trial has highlighted key concerns regarding early access and conditional approvals for new medicines. Concerns include potentially considerable clinical and economic costs, so that patients may have received suboptimal treatment and any money spent has foregone the opportunity to improve access to effective treatments. As a result, it seems reasonable to reconsider current marketing authorisation models and approaches. Potential pathways forward include closer collaboration between regulators, pharmaceutical companies and payers to enhance the generation of rapid and comparative confirmatory trials in a safe and fair manner, with minimal patient exposure as required to achieve robust evidence. Additionally, it may be time to review early access systems, and to explore new avenues regarding who should pay or part pay for new treatments whilst information is being collected as part of any obligations for conditional marketing authorisation. Greater co-operation between countries regarding the collection of data in routine clinical care, and further research on post-marketing data analysis and interpretation, may also contribute to improved appraisal and continued access to new innovative cancer treatments.

Proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment in Europe - opinions of policy makers, payers and academics from the field of HTA.

INTRODUCTION: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): 'Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU'. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. There were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision-making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that a balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

The European challenges of funding orphan medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: Funding of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is an increasing challenge in the European Union (EU). OBJECTIVES: To identify the different methods for public funding of OMPs in order to map the availability for rare disease patients, as well as to compare the public expenditures on OMPs in 8 EU member states. METHODS: Information on the reimbursement status of 83 OMPs was collected in 8 countries by distinguishing standard and special reimbursements. In two consecutive years, the total public expenditures on OMPs were calculated by using annual EUR exchange rates. Annual total public expenditures were calculated per capita, and as a proportion of GDP, total public pharmaceutical and healthcare budgets. Differences between countries were compared by calculating the deviations from the average spending of countries. RESULTS: In 2015 29.4-92.8% of the 83 OMPs were available with any kind of public reimbursement in participant countries including special reimbursement on an individual basis. In Austria, Belgium and France more OMPs were accessible for patients with public reimbursement than in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Standard reimbursement through retail pharmacies and/or hospitals was applied from 0 to 41% of OMPs. The average annual total public expenditure ranged between 1.4-23.5 €/capita in 2013 and 2014. Higher income countries spent more OMPs in absolute terms. Participant countries spent 0.018-0.066% of their GDPs on funding OMPs. Average expenditures on OMPs were ranged between 2.25-6.51% of the public pharmaceutical budget, and 0.44-0.96% of public healthcare expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and special reimbursement techniques play different roles in participant countries. The number of accessible OMPs indicated an equity gap between Eastern and Western Europe. The spending on OMPs as a proportion of GDP, public pharmaceutical and healthcare expenditure was not higher in lower income countries, which indicates substantial differences in patient access to OMPs in favour of higher-income countries. Equity in access for patients with rare diseases is an important policy objective in each member state of the EU; however, equity in access should be harmonized at the European level.

Recent Initiatives in the Republic of Srpska to Enhance Appropriate Use of Antibiotics in Ambulatory Care; Their Influence and Implications.

Introduction: There are increasing concerns world-wide with growing rates of antibiotic resistance necessitating urgent action. There have been a number of initiatives in the Republic of Srpska in recent years to address this and improve rational antibiotic prescribing and dispensing despite limited resources to fund multiple initiatives. Objective: Analyse antibiotic utilization patterns in the Republic of Srpska following these multiple initiatives as a basis for developing future programmes in the Republic if needed. Methods: Observational retrospective study of total outpatient antibiotic utilization from 2010 to 2015, based on data obtained from the Public Health Institute, alongside documentation of ongoing initiatives to influence utilization. The quality of antibiotic utilization principally assessed according to ESAC, ECDC, and WHO quality indicators and DU 90% (the drug utilization 90%) profile as well as vs. neighboring countries. Results: Following multiple initiatives, antibiotic utilization remained relatively stable in the Republic at 15.6 to 18.4 DIDs, with a decreasing trend in recent years, with rates comparable or lower than neighboring countries. Amoxicillin and the penicillins accounted for 29-40 and 50% of total utilization, respectively. Overall, limited utilization of co-amoxiclav (7-11%), cephalosporins, macrolides, and quinolones, as well as low use of third and fourth generation cephalosporins vs. first and second cephalosporins. However, increasing utilization of co-amoxiclav and azithromycin, as well as higher rates of quinolone utilization compared to some countries, was seen. Conclusions: Multiple interventions in the Republic of Srpska in recent years have resulted in one of the lowest utilization of antibiotics when compared with similar countries, acting as an exemplar to others. However, there are some concerns with current utilization of co-amoxiclav and azithromycin which are being addressed. This will be the subject of future research activities.

Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: An overview.

BACKGROUND: Across European countries, differences exist in biosimilar policies, leading to variations in uptake of biosimilars and divergences in savings all over Europe. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different initiatives and policies that may influence the uptake of biosimilars in different European countries. Recommendations will be formulated on how to create sustainable uptake. METHODS: An overview of policies on biosimilars was obtained via a questionnaire, supplemented with relevant articles. Topics were organized in five themes: availability, pricing, reimbursement, demand-side policies, and recommendations to enhance uptake. RESULTS: In all countries studied, biological medicines are available. Restrictions are mainly dependent on local organization of the healthcare system. Countries are willing to include biosimilars for reimbursement, but for commercial reasons they are not always marketed. In two thirds of countries, originator and biosimilar products may be subjected to internal reference pricing systems. Few countries have implemented specific incentives targeting physicians. Several countries are implementing pharmacist substitution; however, the scope and rules governing such substitution tend to vary between these countries. Reported educational policies tend to target primarily physicians, whereas fewer initiatives were reported for patients. Recommendations as proposed by the different country experts ranged from the need for information and communication on biosimilars to competitive pricing, more support for switching and guidance on substitution. CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have put in place specific supply-side policies for promoting access to biosimilars. To supplement these measures, we propose that investments should be made to clearly communicate on biosimilars and educate stakeholders. Especially physicians need to be informed on the entry and use of biosimilars in order to create trust. When physicians are well-informed on the treatment options, further incentives should be offered to prescribe biosimilars. Gainsharing can be used as an incentive to prescribe, dispense or use biosimilars. This approach, in combination with binding quota, may support a sustainable biosimilar market.

Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The "introduction" of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers.

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. METHOD: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. RESULTS: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.