Managed Entry Agreements: Policy Analysis From the European Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Mounting pressures on the healthcare system, such as budget constraints and new, costly health technologies reaching the market, have pushed payers and manufacturers to engage in managed entry agreements (MEAs) to address uncertainty and facilitate market access. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to illustrate the current landscape of MEAs in Europe and to analyze the main hurdles they face in implementation, providing a policy perspective. METHODS: We conducted a health policy analysis based on a literature review and described the emergence, classification, current use, and implementation obstacles of MEAs in Europe. RESULTS: Throughout Europe, uncertainty and high prices of health technologies have pushed stakeholders towards MEAs. Two main types of MEAs were applied heavily, finance-based agreements (FBAs) and performance-based agreements, including individual performance-based agreements and coverage with evidence development (CED). Service-based agreements have not been as heavily considered so far, yet are increasingly used. Many European countries are turning to CEDs to address uncertainty and facilitate market access while negotiating the pricing and reimbursement rates of products. Despite the interest in CEDs, European countries have moved toward FBAs due to the complexities and burdens associated with PBAs. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, in Europe, with the exception of Italy, where MEAs have proven to be inefficient, MEAs are predominantly FBAs dedicated to addressing cost containment from payers' perspective and external reference pricing from the manufacturers' perspective. It has been speculated that MEAs will disappear in the medium-term as they are counterproductive for extending patient access and emergence of innovation. To inform value-based decision making and allow early access to innovative medicines, CEDs should be revisited.

Heterogeneous Recommendations for Oncology Products Among Different HTA Systems: A Comparative Assessment.

Rising budget constraints and demands for healthcare services create additional complexity within the decision process for resource allocation. Innovations and scientific progress have been shown to be key drivers of the increase in healthcare expenditures (1). In the context of rising medical care costs and limited resources, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was developed as a tool to inform decision-making and to provide the rationalization behind these decisions driving resource allocation and spending for health technology products. Furthermore, HTA agencies make the decision-making process more transparent. The HTA approach involves evaluating multiple aspects of a new product's value in order to maximize health gain provided within the setting of limited resources.

Drivers of patient and caregiver preferences for growth hormone deficiency treatments in France: a discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: To identify drivers of preference for growth hormone deficiency (GHD) treatment in French children, and their caregivers, and to quantify the relative importance of different aspects of treatment modalities using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Attributes characterizing GHD treatment modalities were identified through a literature review, qualitative interviews and focus groups with children, adolescents, and caregivers. A DCE questionnaire of 12 choice tasks was administered online to four groups of participants: autonomous adolescents (12 to 18 years), non-autonomous adolescent / caregiver dyads, caregivers of non-autonomous children (3 to 11 years) and autonomous children / caregiver dyads. The survey was pilot tested. A multinomial logit model with random effects was used to estimate preference weights for all attribute levels. RESULTS: Frequency of administration, injection pain, dose setting, type of device, storage and device reusability were selected as DCE attributes following the qualitative research phase and a pilot study. A total of 105 patients were represented in the DCE survey. Frequency of administration and injection pain were the attributes with the greatest influence on respondents' preferences and had similar importance. Weekly administration was significantly preferred over daily administration by all groups of participants. Respondents' choices were also significantly influenced by the type of device, dose setting and device reusability. CONCLUSION: Children with GHD and their caregivers prefer a less frequent injection schedule and lower injection pain. Both aspects of treatment modalities are important to consider in treatment decisions to alleviate the daily burden for GHD patients and their families and potentially enhance treatment adherence.

Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits). RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.

Orphan drugs are drugs serving a substantial public health need by treating life-threatening or chronically debilitating medical conditions affecting a small number of people with very high unmet needs. We reviewed 38 published studies looking at drug characteristics that may cause people to value orphan drugs differently versus treatments for common conditions. Most people surveyed in these publications favored health care funds going to more prevalent diseases. However, some people preferred funding orphan drugs even when the cost versus health benefit was higher compared with treatments for more common diseases. The majority of studies that investigated the impact of disease severity on the valuation of treatments found that people prioritized patients with severe disease over those with milder disease, for the same extent of health benefit. People also preferred funding treatments for diseases that have no alternative treatments, or treatments with limited benefits, over treatments for diseases with many treatments or more effective treatments. We also found evidence of a societal preference for shared resources, meaning that no patient would be left without treatment, including those who receive limited benefits from health care resources, even if this does not lead to the maximization of health benefits across society. In conclusion, our literature review indicated that the general public attaches greater value to orphan drugs versus treatments for more common diseases, not because of rarity per se, but largely because the rare diseases treated by orphan drugs are often severe and have no or few treatment options.

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives.

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers-regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)-are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit-risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit-risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making. Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

President Trump's prescription to reduce drug prices: from the campaign trail to American Patients First.

Background: Drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world, restricting access to the domestic lower income population. President Trump campaigned heavily on promises to reduce drug prices.Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate and analyze publications addressing President Trump's promises from the campaign trail as well as the shortcomings and achievements of the Trump administration.Results: Major promises ranged from repealing and replacing Obamacare, expanding coverage, allowing cross-state insurance purchasing, and reducing drug prices. Main accomplishments of the Trump administration have been two executive orders (13765 and 13813), the proposition of the American Health Care Act, and the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The American Patients First blueprint further revealed the administration's strategies for lowering drug prices. The administration has also engaged in unconventional strategies, such as via bilateral leverage directly with trade partners.Conclusion: The Trump administration has not yet been able to fulfill the major campaign promises, primarily the ones requiring legislative and/or administrative action. If enough legislative action is accomplished to implement the Trump administration's promises, the effects on the pharmaceutical industry could be direct, yet minimal, unless Medicare can directly negotiate with manufacturers.

Why "American Patients First" is likely to raise drug prices outside of the United States.

Background: The Trump administration's 'American Patients First' blueprint proposes to reduce drug prices in the USA by increasing drug prices abroad, ex USA. The possibility of the Trump administration to raise drug prices ex USA through legal action via the WTO and bilateral negotiations with foreign trade partners was reviewed. Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate publications of the Trump administrations' policies and strategies towards foreign countries and drug prices. Results: The Trump administration has withdrawn from and halted major multilateral agreements including the TPP, Paris Agreement, TTIP, UNESCO, NAFTA (now USMCA), and NATO. The Trump administration has been successful in bilateral negotiations for pharmaceuticals' pricing, as seen with Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Mexico and Canada. Conclusion: The objective of raising prices abroad is attainable. Action through the WTO is unlikely, due to its nondiscriminatory principle. Bilateral trade negotiation have proven more promising. In this bilateral framework, financial security and military protection are strong assets for the USA to levy higher drug prices abroad. Although raising drug prices ex USA is possible, further questions as to whether this will directly translate into lower drug prices for American patients are raised.