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.

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.

[The incorporation of nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System: critical thoughts on the institutionalization of health technology assessment in Brazil]. / A incorporação do nusinersena no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma reflexão crítica sobre a institucionalização da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil.

In April 2019, a ruling was signed for the incorporation of the drug nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Nusinersen is the most expensive drug ever incorporated by the SUS and is used to treat type I 5q spinal muscular atrophy. The incorporation has been described as a milestone in decision-making on new technologies in the SUS, enabled through a risk-sharing agreement. The article discusses the process involved in the incorporation of nusinersen, highlighting the context, timing, and technical issues, in addition to possible consequences for the institutionalization of health technology assessment (HTA) in the SUS. The study used an exploratory method, reviewing public information produced by the Commission for Incorporation of Technologies in the SUS (CONITEC) and searches in government databanks on prices and purchases. A timeline was produced, describing the key points in the process of incorporation. There were two formal requests for the drug's incorporation. The first was submitted by the Division of Science, Technology, and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) of the Brazilian Ministry of Health and was turned down unanimously in November 2018. This was followed by a petition by the head of the SCTIE to the Attorney General's Office (AGU) to overrule the recommendation by the CONITEC plenary. The AGU recommended a new submission, made by the drug's manufacturing company, which was approved unanimously in March 2019. The was no addition of new evidence or a price reduction to justify the change of decision. No elements were identified in the risk-sharing agreement. This suggests problems of transparency and accountability, as well as risks in the process of institutionalization of HTA that had been underway in the SUS.

Em abril de 2019, foi assinada a portaria de incorporação do medicamento nusinersena no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). É o medicamento mais caro já incorporado ao SUS, para uso no tratamento de atrofia muscular espinhal 5q tipo I. A incorporação é referida como um marco na tomada de decisão sobre novas tecnologias no SUS, a ser viabilizada por meio de acordo de partilha de risco. O trabalho discute o processo de incorporação do nusinersena, destacando aspectos contextuais, temporais e técnicos, além de possíveis consequências para a institucionalização da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde (ATS) no SUS. Seguiu método exploratório, com revisão de informações públicas produzidas pela Comissão de Incorporação de Tecnologias no SUS (CONITEC) e busca em bancos de dados governamentais de preços e compras. Foi produzida linha temporal descrevendo os pontos-chave do processo de incorporação. Houve dois pedidos de incorporação do medicamento. O primeiro, submetido pela Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos (SCTIE) do Ministério da Saúde, negado por unanimidade, em novembro de 2018. Seguiu-se o pedido do Secretário da SCTIE à Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), para que pudesse decidir de forma contrária à recomendação do plenário da CONITEC. A AGU recomendou uma nova submissão, feita pela empresa produtora e aprovada por unanimidade, em março de 2019. Não houve acréscimo de novas evidências ou redução de preço que justificassem a mudança de decisão. Não foram identificados os elementos constituintes do acordo de partilha de risco. São sinalizados problemas de transparência e accountability, bem como riscos ao processo de institucionalização da ATS que vinha em curso no SUS.

Resumen: En abril de 2019, se firmó el decreto de incorporación del medicamento nusinersén en el Sistema Único de Salud brasileño (SUS). Es el medicamento más caro que se ha incorporado al SUS para su uso en el tratamiento de la atrofia muscular espinal 5q tipo I. La incorporación del mismo está considerada como un marco de referencia en la toma de decisiones sobre nuevas tecnologías en el SUS, que puede ser viable mediante el acuerdo de distribución de riesgo. El trabajo discute el proceso de incorporación del nusinersén, destacando aspectos contextuales, temporales y técnicos, además de posibles consecuencias para la institucionalización de la evaluación de tecnologías en salud (ETS) en el SUS. El trabajo siguió el método exploratorio, con una revisión de la información pública, generada por la Comisión de Incorporación de Tecnologías en el SUS (CONITEC) y la búsqueda en bancos de datos gubernamentales de precios y compras. Se creó una línea temporal, describiendo los puntos-clave del proceso de incorporación. Hubo dos peticiones de incorporación del medicamento. La primera, sometida a la Secretaría de Ciencia, Tecnología e Insumos Estratégicos (SCTIE) del Ministerio de Salud, rechazada por unanimidad, en noviembre de 2018. A lo que le siguió la petición del Secretario de la SCTIE a la Abogacía-General de la Unión (AGU), para que pudiese decidir en otro sentido respecto a la recomendación del pleno de la CONITEC. La AGU recomendó una nueva remisión, realizada por la empresa productora y aprobada por unanimidad, en marzo de 2019. No se produjo un incremento de nuevas evidencias o una reducción del precio que justificasen el cambio de decisión. No se identificaron los elementos constituyentes del acuerdo de distribución de riesgo. Se señalaron los problemas de transparencia y rendición de cuentas, así como riesgos para el proceso de institucionalización de la ETS que estaba en curso en el SUS.

A incorporação do nusinersena no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma reflexão crítica sobre a institucionalização da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil / The incorporation of nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System: critical thoughts on the institutionalization of health technology assessment in Brazil / La incorporación del nusinersén al Sistema Único de Salud: una reflexión crítica sobre la institucionalización de la evaluación de tecnologías en salud en Brasil

Resumo: Em abril de 2019, foi assinada a portaria de incorporação do medicamento nusinersena no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). É o medicamento mais caro já incorporado ao SUS, para uso no tratamento de atrofia muscular espinhal 5q tipo I. A incorporação é referida como um marco na tomada de decisão sobre novas tecnologias no SUS, a ser viabilizada por meio de acordo de partilha de risco. O trabalho discute o processo de incorporação do nusinersena, destacando aspectos contextuais, temporais e técnicos, além de possíveis consequências para a institucionalização da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde (ATS) no SUS. Seguiu método exploratório, com revisão de informações públicas produzidas pela Comissão de Incorporação de Tecnologias no SUS (CONITEC) e busca em bancos de dados governamentais de preços e compras. Foi produzida linha temporal descrevendo os pontos-chave do processo de incorporação. Houve dois pedidos de incorporação do medicamento. O primeiro, submetido pela Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos (SCTIE) do Ministério da Saúde, negado por unanimidade, em novembro de 2018. Seguiu-se o pedido do Secretário da SCTIE à Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), para que pudesse decidir de forma contrária à recomendação do plenário da CONITEC. A AGU recomendou uma nova submissão, feita pela empresa produtora e aprovada por unanimidade, em março de 2019. Não houve acréscimo de novas evidências ou redução de preço que justificassem a mudança de decisão. Não foram identificados os elementos constituintes do acordo de partilha de risco. São sinalizados problemas de transparência e accountability, bem como riscos ao processo de institucionalização da ATS que vinha em curso no SUS.

Abstract: In April 2019, a ruling was signed for the incorporation of the drug nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Nusinersen is the most expensive drug ever incorporated by the SUS and is used to treat type I 5q spinal muscular atrophy. The incorporation has been described as a milestone in decision-making on new technologies in the SUS, enabled through a risk-sharing agreement. The article discusses the process involved in the incorporation of nusinersen, highlighting the context, timing, and technical issues, in addition to possible consequences for the institutionalization of health technology assessment (HTA) in the SUS. The study used an exploratory method, reviewing public information produced by the Commission for Incorporation of Technologies in the SUS (CONITEC) and searches in government databanks on prices and purchases. A timeline was produced, describing the key points in the process of incorporation. There were two formal requests for the drug's incorporation. The first was submitted by the Division of Science, Technology, and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) of the Brazilian Ministry of Health and was turned down unanimously in November 2018. This was followed by a petition by the head of the SCTIE to the Attorney General's Office (AGU) to overrule the recommendation by the CONITEC plenary. The AGU recommended a new submission, made by the drug's manufacturing company, which was approved unanimously in March 2019. The was no addition of new evidence or a price reduction to justify the change of decision. No elements were identified in the risk-sharing agreement. This suggests problems of transparency and accountability, as well as risks in the process of institutionalization of HTA that had been underway in the SUS.

Resumen: En abril de 2019, se firmó el decreto de incorporación del medicamento nusinersén en el Sistema Único de Salud brasileño (SUS). Es el medicamento más caro que se ha incorporado al SUS para su uso en el tratamiento de la atrofia muscular espinal 5q tipo I. La incorporación del mismo está considerada como un marco de referencia en la toma de decisiones sobre nuevas tecnologías en el SUS, que puede ser viable mediante el acuerdo de distribución de riesgo. El trabajo discute el proceso de incorporación del nusinersén, destacando aspectos contextuales, temporales y técnicos, además de posibles consecuencias para la institucionalización de la evaluación de tecnologías en salud (ETS) en el SUS. El trabajo siguió el método exploratorio, con una revisión de la información pública, generada por la Comisión de Incorporación de Tecnologías en el SUS (CONITEC) y la búsqueda en bancos de datos gubernamentales de precios y compras. Se creó una línea temporal, describiendo los puntos-clave del proceso de incorporación. Hubo dos peticiones de incorporación del medicamento. La primera, sometida a la Secretaría de Ciencia, Tecnología e Insumos Estratégicos (SCTIE) del Ministerio de Salud, rechazada por unanimidad, en noviembre de 2018. A lo que le siguió la petición del Secretario de la SCTIE a la Abogacía-General de la Unión (AGU), para que pudiese decidir en otro sentido respecto a la recomendación del pleno de la CONITEC. La AGU recomendó una nueva remisión, realizada por la empresa productora y aprobada por unanimidad, en marzo de 2019. No se produjo un incremento de nuevas evidencias o una reducción del precio que justificasen el cambio de decisión. No se identificaron los elementos constituyentes del acuerdo de distribución de riesgo. Se señalaron los problemas de transparencia y rendición de cuentas, así como riesgos para el proceso de institucionalización de la ETS que estaba en curso en el SUS.

Public participation in decision-making on the coverage of new antivirals for hepatitis C.

Purpose - New hepatitis C medicines such as sofosbuvir underline the need to balance considerations of innovation, clinical evidence, budget impact and equity in health priority-setting. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public participation in addressing these considerations. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a comparative case study approach. It explores the experience of four countries - Brazil, England, South Korea and the USA - in making coverage decisions about the antiviral sofosbuvir and involving the public and patients in these decision-making processes. Findings - Issues emerging from public participation ac tivities include the role of the universal right to health in Brazil, the balance between innovation and budget impact in England, the effect of unethical medical practices on public perception in South Korea and the legitimacy of priority-setting processes in the USA. Providing policymakers are receptive to these issues, public participation activities may be re-conceptualized as processes that illuminate policy problems relevant to a particular context, thereby promoting an agenda-setting role for the public. Originality/value - The paper offers an empirical analysis of public involvement in the case of sofosbuvir, where the relevant considerations that bear on priority-setting decisions have been particularly stark. The perspectives that emerge suggest that public participation contributes to raising attention to issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Public participation activities can thus contribute to setting policy agendas, even if that is not their explicit purpose. However, the actualization of this contribution is contingent on the receptiveness of policymakers.

Patterns of public participation.

Purpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.