Market Entry Agreements for Innovative Pharmaceuticals Subject to Indication Broadening: A Case Study for Pembrolizumab in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Managed entry agreements and especially financial-based agreements are commonly used in European countries for innovative cancer pharmaceuticals. These agreements facilitate access to innovative treatments while mitigating financial risks for payers. This study focuses on the confidential price agreement made by the Dutch government for the reimbursement of pembrolizumab, the implications of broadening indications on cost-effectiveness, and the viability or desirability of said agreement. METHODS: We selected 5 indications in which pembrolizumab was deemed effective and developed portioned survival models for each indication. Survival and progression-free survival data from the published trials were utilized to recreate individual patient data, and we extrapolated-using parametric models-to a time horizon of 30 years. Inputs for both quality of life and costs were derived from the available literature and were indexed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between €35 313 and €322 349 per quality-adjusted life-year, depending on the indication. Only 1 indication fell under the €80 000 (or €100 000) cost-effectiveness threshold. When applying the average reported discount on intramural pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between €20 881 and €252 934 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and the €80 000 (or €100 000) threshold was met in 3 indications out of 5. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that pembrolizumab could be cost-effective in some indications, depending on the confidential price agreement established. However, the possibility of reimbursing not cost-effective care when the price is anchored in 1 indication remains possible. Indication-based pricing could help align value and price for innovative pharmaceuticals that are subject to indication broadening.

Uncertainty in Long-Term Relative Effectiveness of Medicines in Health Technology Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments. METHODS: A total of 49 HTA reports from 6 national HTA bodies, assessing 9 medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements, and reassessments. RESULTS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all cost-effectiveness assessments (91%) and three-quarters of relative effectiveness assessments (74%), despite differences in methodologies among HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 managed entry agreements were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. In addition, 13 reassessments were performed of which 4 led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence among HTA bodies, which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Values, challenges, and responses associated with high-priced potential cures: perspectives of diverse stakeholders in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of high-priced potential cures has sparked significant health policy discussions in South Korea, where the healthcare system is funded through a single-payer National Health Insurance model. We conducted focus group interviews (FGIs) and accompanying surveys with diverse stakeholders to comprehensively understand related issues and find better solutions to the challenges brought by these technologies. METHODS: From October to November 2022, 11 FGIs were conducted with stakeholders from various sectors, including government payers, policy and clinical experts, civic and patient organisations, and the pharmaceutical industry, involving a total of 25 participants. These qualitative discussions were supplemented by online surveys to effectively capture and synthesise stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: Affordability was identified as a critical concern by 84% of stakeholders, followed by clinical uncertainty (76%) and limited value for money (72%). Stakeholders expressed a preference for both financial-based controls and outcome-based pricing strategies to mitigate these challenges. Despite the support for outcome-based refunds, payers raised concerns about the feasibility of instalment payment models, whether linked to outcomes or not, due to the specific challenges of the Korean reimbursement system and the potential risk of 'cumulative liabilities' from ongoing payments for previously administered treatments. In addition, the FGIs highlighted the need for clear budgetary limits for drugs with high uncertainties, with mixed opinions on the creation of special silo funds (64.0% agreement). Less than half (48%) endorsed the use of external reference pricing, currently applied to such essential drugs in South Korea. A significant majority (84%), predominantly non-pharma stakeholders, advocated for addressing cost-effectiveness uncertainty through re-assessment once long-term clinical data become available. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovers a broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for more effective value assessment methodologies for high-priced potential cures, stressing the importance of more robust and comprehensive re-assessment supported by long-term data collection, rather than primarily relying on external reference pricing. Each type of stakeholders exhibited a cautious approach to their specific uncertainties, suggesting that new funding strategies should accommodate these uncertainties with predefined guidelines and agreements prior to the initiation of managed entry agreements.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Uptake and availability of new outpatient cancer medicines in 2010-2021 in Nordic countries - survey of competent authorities.

BACKGROUND: Nordic countries excel in cancer care, but studies on uptake, costs, or managed entry agreements of cancer medicines have not been conducted recently. The aim of this study was to examine the uptake and availability of orally administered new cancer medicines in Nordic countries. Orally administered cancer medicines enable and are used in the community as part of outpatient care. Firstly, we studied the distribution, costs and adoption of managed entry agreements of these medicines, and secondly, uptake of and managed entry agreements for cancer medicines used in outpatient care that were granted marketing authorization in Europe in 2010-2021. METHODS: An E-mail survey of competent authorities, meaning pharmaceutical service organizers, payers or other government or non-government actors developing pharmaceutical service operations, in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in April-June 2022. The data were analysed using frequencies and percentages for descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The distribution of cancer medicines has similarities in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, where cancer medicines can be distributed both via hospitals or hospital pharmacies for inpatient use, and via community pharmacies for outpatient use. In Denmark, cancer medicines are predominantly distributed via publicly funded hospitals. In all countries that provided data on the costs, the costs of cancer medicines had notably gone up from 2010 to 2021. The number of reimbursable medicines out of new cancer medicines varied from 36 products in Denmark and Iceland to 51 products in Sweden, out of 67 studied products. Managed entry agreements, often with confidential discounts, were in use in all Nordic countries. The number of agreements and the cancer types for which agreements were most often made varied from three agreements made in Iceland to 35 agreements made in Finland, out of 67 studied products. Average days from authorization to reimbursement of new cancer medicines varied from an average of 416 to 895 days. CONCLUSIONS: Nordic countries share similar characteristics but also differ in terms of the details in distribution, adopted managed entry agreements, market entry, and availability of new orally administered cancer medicines used in the outpatient care. The costs of cancer medicines have increased in all Nordic countries during the last decade. Due to differences in health care and because orally administered cancer medicines can be dispensed at community and hospital pharmacies in all studied countries other than Denmark, the number of reimbursable medicines and managed entry agreements vary between countries. However, Nordic countries show good agreement for 2010 to 2021 in entry and reimbursement decisions of novel cancer medicines.

Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement. METHODS: Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)). RESULTS: Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

Facilitating [corrected] More Efficient Negotiations for Innovative Therapies: A Value-Based Negotiation Framework.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual "value-based negotiation framework" with corresponding application tools. METHODS: The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input. RESULTS: The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences. METHODS: All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (-.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies. CONCLUSIONS: A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, "best-practice" guidelines for successful MEA implementation.

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.

The impact of managed entry agreements on pharmaceutical prices.

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) have been used for several years, with the aim of curbing the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure and enhancing patient access to innovation. Yet, much remains to be understood about their economic implications. This paper studies the impact of MEAs on list prices, that is, prices before the deduction of any discount. Using a theoretical model, we show that, under most price setting regimes, the introduction of an MEA leads to a higher list price. This is confirmed by our empirical analysis of a sample of 156 medicines in six countries, providing a conservative estimate of the increase in price due to the MEA of 5.9%. A relevant policy implication is that payers may overestimate the financial gains that can be achieved through this  tool.

Conditional Financing of Drugs in the Netherlands: Past, Present, and Future-Results From Stakeholder Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Conditional financing (CF) of hospital drugs was implemented in the Netherlands as a form of managed entry agreements between 2006 and 2012. CF was a 4-year process comprising 3 stages: initial health technology assessment of the drug (T = 0), conduct of outcomes research studies, and reassessment of the drug (T = 4). OBJECTIVES: To analyze stakeholder experiences in implementing CF in practice. METHODS: Public and private stakeholders were approached for participation in stakeholder interviews through standardized email invitations. An interview guide was developed to guide discussions that covered the following topics: perceived aims of CF, functioning of CF, impact of CF, and conclusions and future perspectives. Extensive summaries were generated for each interview and subsequently used for directed content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty stakeholders were interviewed. Differences emerged among the stakeholders on the perceived aims of CF. Conversely, there was some agreement among stakeholders on the shortcomings in the functioning of CF, the positive impact of CF on the Dutch healthcare setting, and improvement points for CF. CONCLUSIONS: Despite stakeholders' belief that CF either did not meet its aims or only partially did so, there was agreement on the need for new policy to address the same aims of CF in the future. Nevertheless, stakeholders diverged on whether CF should be improved on the basis of learnings identified and reintroduced into practice or replaced with new policy schemes.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA.

OBJECTIVES: Australia relies on managed entry agreements (MEAs) for many medicines added to the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Previous studies of Australian MEAs examined public domain documents and were not able to provide a comprehensive assessment of the types and operation of MEAs. This study used government documents approved for release to examine the implementation and administration of MEAs implemented January 2012 to May 2016. METHODS: We accessed documents for medicines with MEAs on the PBS between January 2012 and May 2016. Data were extracted on Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC), type of MEA (financial, financial with outcomes, outcomes, and subcategories within each group), implementation and administration methods, source of MEA recommendation, and type of economic analysis. RESULTS: Of all medication indication pairs (MIPs) recommended for listing, one-third had MEAs implemented. Our study of eighty-seven MIPs had 170 MEAs in place. The Government's expert health technology assessment (HTA) committee recommended MEAs for 90 percent of the eighty-seven MIPs. A total of 81 percent of MEAs were simple financial agreements: the majority either discounts (32 percent) or reimbursement caps (43 percent). Outcome-based MEAs were least common (5 percent). Ninety-two percent of MEAs were implemented and operated through legal agreements. Approximately half of the MIPs were listed on the basis of accepted claims of cost-minimization. Forty-nine percent of medicines were in ATC L group. CONCLUSION: Advice from HTA evaluations strongly influences the implementation of ways to manage uncertainties while providing access to medicines. The government relied primarily on simple financial agreements for the managed entry of medicines for which there were perceived risks.

CASE STUDY ON AN IPILIMUMAB COST-CONTAINMENT STRATEGY IN AN ITALIAN HOSPITAL.

OBJECTIVES: Ipilimumab is the first licensed immune checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of melanoma. The promising results of the registration clinical study need confirmation in real practice and its clinical success comes together with a relevant budget impact due to the high price of this drug. The aim of this work is to describe a new model of economical sustainability of ipilimumab developed in an Italian reference center for melanoma treatment. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, and monocentric study was carried out at the Veneto Institute of Oncology. Ipilimumab was administered to fifty-seven patients with advanced melanoma. Overall survival, progression free survival, and toxicity were evaluated. A local management procedure was evaluated together with the cost-saving strategies implemented by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). RESULTS: We demonstrated that the use of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in real practice had an efficacy and toxicity similar to that reported in the literature. In this scenario, our management model (centralization of compounding + drug-day) permitted savings up to the 11.1 percent of the gross cost for the drug (calculated assuming that no cost saving procedures were applied) while the policy of cost containment designed by AIFA produced an additional 6.2 percent of savings. CONCLUSIONS: In real practice conditions, the centralized administration of ipilimumab allows to replicate the results of clinical studies and in the meantime to contain the cost associated with this drug. The local strategy of management can be readily applied to most of the high cost drugs compounded in the hospital pharmacy. Impact of findings on practice: (i) We describe a new model of economic sustainability (drug-day, centralization of compounding, payback systems) of an expensive and innovative drug, ipilimumab, for treatment of melanoma within an Italian cancer center. (ii) This pivotal study demonstrated that a cost containment strategy is feasible and it needs the cooperation of all healthcare providers (oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, and technicians) to guarantee the full efficiency of the process.

MONITORING REGISTRIES AT ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY: FOSTERING ACCESS, GUARANTEEING SUSTAINABILITY.

OBJECTIVES: The AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco--Italian Medicines Agency) Monitoring Registries track the eligibility of patients and the complete flow of treatments, guaranteeing appropriateness in use of pharmaceutical products, according to approved indications. METHODS: This study describes the Italian pharmaceutical context and the aims and functioning of AIFA Monitoring Registries, focusing on the applications to the Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) and HTA approaches. RESULTS: The AIFA Monitoring Registries System has been operational in Italy since 2005. In 2012, the system became part of the NHS Information Technology system, aiming at enhancing appropriate use of pharmaceuticals and efficiency of the administrative activity. Currently, seventy-six medicines are monitored through the system, corresponding to fifty-eight therapeutic indications; individual treatments recorded are more than 515,000, for a population of approximately 505,000 patients. For each monitored product, patients eligible for treatment are registered in the specific therapeutic indication dynamic monitoring database to collect epidemiologic and clinical data, including data on the safety profile, and ex-post information missing at first evaluation stage. CONCLUSIONS: AIFA Monitoring Registries allow the evaluation of the pharmaceuticals' performance in clinical practice and may promote innovation and quicker access to medicines at affordable prices, for the benefit of patients.

Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) play a pivotal role in addressing the challenges arising from escalating prices of innovative medical technologies, especially in areas like oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. Among MEAs, Performance-Based MEAs (PB MEAs) and Outcome-Based MEAs (OB MEAs) stand out as innovative strategies. This study examines the adoption of PB MEAs in the Czech Republic post a 2022 legislative change. Interviews with key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and patient groups, were conducted to explore perceptions and challenges. Stakeholders expressed concerns about legislation completeness, data quality, transparency, and methodology. Interestingly, pharmaceutical companies were less concerned about transparency and methodology, likely due to their multinational experience. Despite legislative progress, challenges persist, especially in data infrastructure, risk-sharing perceptions, and stakeholder readiness. Addressing these issues requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and payers. Patient involvement, though mandated, remains limited, potentially due to a lack of awareness. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive transformation beyond legislation for a successful PB MEA implementation. Trust, technical infrastructure, and data availability are crucial, necessitating a holistic approach. It contributes to the global discourse on PB MEAs, stressing the adjustment of financial frameworks, embracing value-based healthcare principles, and ensuring high-quality health data metrics. A more holistic, value-based MEA approach could reshape pharmaceutical reimbursement in the future.

Creating win-win-win situations with managed entry agreements? Prioritizing gene and cell therapies within the window of opportunity.

Outcome-based reimbursement models are gaining attention for managing the clinical uncertainties and financial impact of gene and cell therapies. Little guidance exists on how such models can create win-win-win situations, benefiting health-care payers, health-technology developers and patients. Our innovative approach prospectively prioritizes therapies for which a 'window of opportunity' might occur through the analysis of health-technology assessments and product characteristics. Within this window, one size does not fit all, and depending on the extent of clinical uncertainty and potential added benefit levels, different win-win-win situations exist in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dutch Horizon scanning data prioritized etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix) and mozafancogene autotemcel for their potential to benefit from outcome-based reimbursement models. These insights extend beyond gene and cell therapies, and could help to provide sustainable health care and patient access to innovative therapies.

Access in all areas? a round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 4.

In this latest update, we look at recent developments in market access including the pricing agreement of Libmeldy® by the Beneluxa Initiative, the financial impact of managed entry agreements in Italy and the restructuring of Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). We also highlight the collaboration between FINOSE and the New Expensive Drug (NED) section of the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum.

Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that determine (i) if an HTA funding decision will be listed with conditions (LWC) other than a MEA, or with a MEA as a condition (LWCMEA), and ii) the MEA type implemented (i.e., financial, outcomes based, or combination). METHODS: HTA reports of all oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were searched to capture the clinical/economic evidence uncertainties raised in the decision-making process, the Social Value Judgements (SVJs) considered therein and the final coverage decision. Binary and multinomial logit models captured the probability (odds ratio (OR)) of a coverage decision being LWCMEA vs. LWC, and of the MEA being financial, outcomes based, or combination, based on the HTA criteria studied. RESULTS: 23 (12%) LWC and 163 (88%) LWCMEA decisions were identified; 136 (83.4%) comprised financial, 10 (6.2%) outcomes based and 17 (10.4%) combination MEAs. LWCMEA decisions were driven by economic model utilities' uncertainties (7.16 < OR < 26.7, p < .05), and the innovation (8.5 < OR < 11.7, p < .05) SVJ. Outcomes based contracts were influenced by clinical evidence (OR = 69.2, p < .05) and relevance to clinical practice (OR = 26.4, p < .05) uncertainties, and rarity (OR = 46.2, p < .05) and severity (OR = 23.3, p < .05) SVJs. Financial MEAs were influenced by innovation (8.9 < OR < 9.3, p < .05) and societal impact (OR = 17.7, p < .0001) SVJs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an empirical framework on the HTA criteria that shape payers' preferences in funding with MEAs, when faced with uncertainty.