Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports.

INTRODUCTION: Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers' costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations. METHOD: An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins. RESULTS: A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers' costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs. CONCLUSION: Despite the attention given to manufacturers' costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs.

Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices (MDs) increasingly rely on real-world evidence (RWE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and the quality of the evidence used to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of high risk MDs (Class III) by HTA agencies in Europe (four European HTA agencies and EUnetHTA), with particular focus on RWE. Data were extracted from HTA reports on the type of evidence demonstrating (cost-)effectiveness, and the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. 25 HTA reports were included that incorporated 28 observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Half of the studies (46%) took important confounding and/or effect modifying variables into account in the design and/or analyses. The most common way of including confounders and/or effect modifiers was through multivariable regression analysis. Other methods, such as propensity score matching, were rarely employed. Furthermore, meaningful analyses to test key assumptions were largely omitted. Resulting recommendations from HTA agencies on MDs is therefore (partially) based on evidence which is riddled with uncertainty. Considering the increasing importance of RWE it is important that the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness are systematically assessed when used in decision-making.

Information Patients With Melanoma Spontaneously Report About Health-Related Quality of Life on Web-Based Forums: Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a general agreement on the importance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This type of information is becoming increasingly important for the value assessment of health technology assessment agencies in evaluating the benefits of new health technologies, including medicines. However, HRQoL data are often limited, and additional sources that provide this type of information may be helpful. OBJECTIVE: We aim to identify the HRQoL topics important to patients with melanoma based on web-based discussions on public social media forums. METHODS: We identified 3 public web-based forums from the United States and the United Kingdom, namely the Melanoma Patient Information Page, the Melanoma International Forum, and MacMillan. Their posts were randomly selected and coded using qualitative methods until saturation was reached. RESULTS: Of the posts assessed, 36.7% (150/409) of posts on Melanoma International Forum, 45.1% (198/439) on MacMillan, and 35.4% (128/362) on Melanoma Patient Information Page focused on HRQoL. The 2 themes most frequently mentioned were mental health and (un)certainty. The themes were constructed based on underlying and more detailed codes. Codes related to fear, worry and anxiety, uncertainty, and unfavorable effects were the most-often discussed ones. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based forums are a valuable source for identifying relevant HRQoL aspects in patients with a given disease. These aspects could be cross-referenced with existing tools and they might improve the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures, including HRQoL questionnaires. In addition, web-based forums may provide health technology assessment agencies with a more holistic understanding of the external aspects affecting patient HRQoL. These aspects might support the value assessment of new health technologies and could therefore help inform topic prioritization as well as the scoping phase before any value assessment.

Outcomes and Impacts of 10-Year HTA Implementation in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: In 2007, Taiwan began conducting health technology assessments (HTA) to support the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in its reimbursement decisions for drugs, medical devices, and medical services. METHODS: In this study, the development, missions, and procedures of the implementation of HTA in Taiwan are briefly introduced. Moreover, the value of HTA is examined by reviewing the outcomes and impacts of recent HTA-related research projects, which are classified into five categories: (i) pharmaceutical products, (ii) medical procedures, (iii) medical devices, (iv) health policy, and (v) social care. RESULTS: Overall, the 10-year implementation of HTA has not only supported the government's decision making but also enhanced patient care. Furthermore, patient evidence has been highlighted, and patient care pathways have been transformed through patient involvement in HTA. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, HTA's value has been determined by both government and social aspects in Taiwan.

Health Technology Assessment and Appraisal of Therapies for Rare Diseases.

Innovative rare disease therapies and health technology assessment (HTA) share a lot of similarities. Both represent cases of interaction of epidemiology and health economics. Both are relatively new topics in public health practice. And both pose a lot of challenges to rare disease stakeholders who are currently looking for tools to support the timely access to innovative treatments while putting budget spending in order. This is why optimisation of assessment and appraisal of new rare disease therapies is a fundamental issue in rare disease health policy. Rare disease patients and caregivers expect prolonged life expectancy and improved quality of life and they perceive innovative health technologies as a rightful way to achieve these objectives.Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a structured, transparent approach to identify preferred alternatives by means of combined calculation of relative importance of different criteria and performance of the alternatives on these criteria. The labyrinth of competing interests and numerous stakeholders involved is why innovative rare disease health technologies make an excellent case study of the integration between HTA and MCDA. This kind of formalisation of decision-making is perceived as fair and legitimate, leading to a balance and agreement. MCDA provides a stage for a debate of policy priorities, health system specifics and societal attitudes, while also addressing the impact of rarity on all criteria and considerations.

Association of Launch Price and Clinical Value With Reimbursement Decisions for Anticancer Drugs in China.

BACKGROUND: The potential role played by launch price and clinical value in reimbursement decisions has not been sufficiently established in China. This study aimed to investigate the association of launch price and clinical value with reimbursement decisions for anticancer drugs after the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China. METHODS: Anticancer drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China from January 2017 to June 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Approval and reimbursement dates of included drug indications were retrieved from publicly available resources. We collected measures of clinical value, including survival, quality of life (QoL), and overall response rate from pivotal clinical trials and calculated treatment price at launch. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate the association between launch price, clinical value, and reimbursement decisions of anticancer drugs in China. RESULTS: The median reimbursement lag was 579 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 402-936) for 93 indications supported by randomized controlled trials and 637 days (IQR: 373-858) for 42 indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. Reimbursement was granted to 60 (65%) and 23 (55%) indications supported by randomized controlled and single-arm clinical trials, respectively. The launch price of anticancer drugs was not associated with reimbursement decisions in multivariate regression analyses. Indications supported by randomized controlled trials with higher clinical value were more likely to be reimbursed (hazard ratio [HR] for survival=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.15, P=.037), while the overall response rate of indications supported by single-arm clinical trials was not associated with the likelihood of being reimbursed (HR=2.09, 95% CI: 0.14-32.28, P=.595). CONCLUSION: The launch price of anticancer drugs may not have a significant impact on reimbursement decisions, while the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China has prioritized anticancer drugs with higher clinical value, but only for indications supported by randomized controlled trials. Efforts are needed to prioritize indications supported by single-arm clinical trials that have higher value during the process of price negotiation.

Access to novel cancer medicines in four countries in Central and Eastern Europe in relation to clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: Almost 100 novel cancer medicines have been approved in Europe over the last decade. Limited public health care resources in countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) call for a prioritization of access to effective medicines. We investigated how both reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement correlate with the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by novel medicines in four selected countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 indications of 51 cancer medicines with marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2011-2020 were included and followed up until 2022. Data on reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement (i.e. time from marketing authorization to national reimbursement approval) were collected for each country. Data were analyzed in relation to clinical benefit status (i.e. substantial versus nonsubstantial clinical benefit) of indications according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). RESULTS: The degree of reimbursement differed between countries with 64% of indications with reimbursement in Czechia, 40% in Hungary, 51% in Poland, and 19% in Slovakia. In all countries, a significantly greater proportion of indications with a substantial clinical benefit was reimbursed (P < 0.05). The median waiting time to reimbursement ranged from 27 months in Poland to 37 months in Hungary. No significant differences in waiting time in relation to clinical benefit were observed in any country (P = 0.25-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer medicines with a substantial clinical benefit are more likely to be reimbursed in all four CEE countries. Waiting times to reimbursement are equally long for medicines with or without a substantial clinical benefit, indicating a lack of prioritization of fast access to medicines delivering a substantial benefit. Incorporation of the ESMO-MCBS in reimbursement assessments and decisions could aid in better utilization of limited resources to deliver more effective cancer care.

HTA and Reimbursement Status of Metastatic Hormone­Sensitive Prostate Cancer, Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treatments in Europe: A Patient Access Landscape Review.

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with up to one-third of men being diagnosed in their lifetime. Recently, novel therapies have received regulatory approval with significant improvement in overall survival for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. To improve decision-making regarding the value of anticancer therapies and support standardized assessment for use by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). Objective: This review aimed to map HTA status, reimbursement restrictions, and patient access for 3 advanced prostate cancer indications across 23 European countries during 2011-2021. Methods: HTA, country reimbursement lists, and ESMO-MCBS scorecards were reviewed for evidence and data across 26 European countries. Results: The analysis demonstrated that only in Greece, Germany, and Sweden was there full access across all included prostate cancer treatments. Treatments available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were widely reimbursed, with both abiraterone and enzalutamide accessible in all countries. In 3 countries (Hungary, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), there was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between status of reimbursement and ESMO-MCBS "substantial benefit" (score of 4 or 5) vs "no substantial benefit" (score <4). Conclusion: Overall, the impact of the ESMO-MCBS on reimbursement decisions in Europe is unclear, with significant variation across the countries included in this review.

Reimbursement decision-making system in Poland systematically compared to other countries.

Introduction: Our objective was to analyze and compare systematically and structurally reimbursement systems in Poland and other countries. Methods: The systems were selected based on recommendations issued by the Polish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariffication (AHTAPol), which explicitly referred to other countries and agencies). Consequently, apart from Poland, the countries included in the analysis were England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Relevant information and data were collected through a systematic search of PubMed (Medline), Embase and The Cochrane Library as well as competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Results and discussion: In most of the countries, the submission of a reimbursement application is initiated by a pharmaceutical company, and only a few countries allow it before a product is approved for marketing. All of the agencies analyzed are independent and some have regulatory function of reimbursement decision making body. A key criterion differentiating the various agencies in terms of HTA is the cost-effectiveness threshold. Most of the countries have specific mechanisms to improve access to expensive specialty drugs, including cancer drugs and those used for rare diseases. Reimbursement systems often lack consistency in appreciating the same stages, leading to heterogeneous decision-making processes. The analysis of recommendations issued in different countries for the same medicinal product will allow a better understanding of the relations between the reimbursement system, HTA assessment, stakeholders involvement and decision on reimbursement of innovative drugs.

Correlation between clinical trial endpoints of marketed cancer drugs and reimbursement decisions in China.

Objective: This study aimed to assess whether different clinical trial endpoints in pivotal trials of cancer drugs were associated with reimbursement decisions in China. Materials and methods: Cancer drugs marketed before June 30th, 2021 with publicly available technical review reports for application of drug registration on Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) website were reviewed. The trial design characteristics and relevant clinical outcomes [e.g., overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)] were extracted from the technical review reports, while the reimbursement decisions were reviewed from National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) website. The differences in trial characteristics and clinical outcomes between drugs with positive reimbursement decisions and negative ones were compared by hypothesis test (Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test). The correlation between different clinical trial endpoints and reimbursement decisions was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: There were 112 cancer drug indications included in this study. Among these indications, 76 received a positive reimbursement decision, and the most common primary endpoints of them were PFS (42.1%) and ORR (30.3%). Taking PFS (OR = 7.333) and ORR (OR = 5.271) as the primary endpoints were more likely to receive a positive reimbursement decision compared with OS (P = 0.003). The proportion of drugs marketed with phase I (75.0%) and phase II (85.7%) clinical trials receiving positive reimbursement decisions are significantly higher than those marketed with phase III clinical trials (61.3%, P = 0.043). The magnitude of clinical benefit only had subtle influences (Prisk benefit - OS = 0.627, Prisk benefit - PFS = 0.087, Psurvival benefit - OS = 0.545, Psurvival benefit - PFS = 0.189) on the drug reimbursement decisions, however, the drug prices and clinical needs also made a difference on that. Conclusion: This study found that, in Chinese drug price negotiations from 2017 to 2021, policymakers have focused more on meeting clinical needs and filling therapeutical gaps in National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), while requirements for the selection of primary endpoints, clinical trial phases, and clinical benefits have been reduced. In the future, emphasis should be put on the use of surrogate endpoints and clinical benefits.

Use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making policies-what is the problem? A perspective paper.

INTRODUCTION: Drug reimbursement decisions that spark public controversy are potential signals that processes used to reach such decisions do not adequately reflect society's goals. Such controversial decisions appear to be a characteristic of Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY)-based Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)-dominated decision-making systems. QALY-based ICER-heavy systems have several known weaknesses that lead to individual and societal preferences being either ignored or considered in an unsystematic and inconsistent manner. AREAS COVERED: We reprise some of the key inadequacies of QALY-based ICER analyses and suggest that there are other means including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and cost-benefit analysis based on willingness to pay (WTP) measures by which to partially mitigate these weaknesses. EXPERT OPINION: For long, the inadequacies of QALY-based ICER-heavy decision-making systems have been rationalized with the answer: 'while the method is a second best, it is the best we currently have.' In light of the equally well-developed and widely utilized alternatives available, this resistance to improve assessment processes should not be accepted by policy makers. Health technology assessment bodies should consider and, with appropriate modifications, adopt these alternatives as they have the potential to result in more comprehensive, systematic, and accountable decision-making.

Time to access to novel anticancer drugs and the correlation with ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale in Slovenia.

Objectives: Timely access to novel anticancer drugs is challenging and value frameworks such as the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) could assist in drug prioritization. We assessed the overall time to access to novel anticancer drugs in Slovenia and its correlation with ESMO-MCBS scores.Methods: Anticancer drugs with European Medicines Agency marketing authorization (EMA MA), applying for national reimbursement approval (NRA) in the period 2008-2018 with assigned ESMO-MCBS score, were included. Publically available data from EMA and the Slovenian National Health Insurance Institute were used for time calculations.Results: Among 53 studied drugs; a majority (47) of them obtained reimbursement approval within the observed time. The median time to EMA MA was 397 (range 98-615) days with the NRA requiring additional 422 (range 154-892) days. Neither time to EMA MA nor NRA correlated with ESMO-MCBS substantial clinical benefit (p = 0.332 and p = 0.965, respectively).Conclusions: In Slovenia, time to access to novel anticancer drugs exceeds two years and, more importantly, is equally long for drugs with or without substantial clinical benefit. Integration of the ESMO-MCBS into reimbursement deliberations could improve access to drugs with substantial clinical benefit.

Key considerations in reimbursement decision-making for multiple sclerosis drugs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) advises on the reimbursement of drugs to be subsidised through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This study aims to provide insights into the PBAC process and key considerations regarding the reimbursement of MS drugs in Australia. METHODS: The factors considered by the PBAC and its advice on whether to reimburse a drug are documented in public summary documents (PSDs). Qualitative content analysis of PSDs was conducted for all MS drugs considered by the PBAC between January 2006 and January 2018. Key issues identified by the PBAC were extracted and categorised. Common issues were identified and compared between drugs indicated for MS. RESULTS: A total of 23 submissions were evaluated relating to 13 MS drugs. Eight were recommended for reimbursement; an approval rate of 35% per submission and 62% per drug. Approval rates were higher for disease modifying treatments (73% per drug) than for symptomatic drugs (0% for nabiximols and fampridine submissions). The most frequently discussed issues in PSDs, irrespective of PBAC decision, were: (1) the validity of the indirect comparisons formed (n = 11); (2) the validity of the approach to obtain utilities (n = 6); (3) the lack of appropriate/long-term safety data (n = 8); and (4) the time horizon used in the economic models (n = 3). CONCLUSION: A small but important number of issues have been consistently identified by the PBAC in relation to submissions for reimbursement of MS drugs. Drug developers and clinical trial investigators who are aware of these issues will be able to anticipate data requirements for reimbursement decision-making and thus potentially improve the evidence submitted for listing of MS drugs in Australia.

Understanding the adoption of new drugs decided by several stakeholders in the South Korean market: a nonparametric event history analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval and reimbursement decisions are necessary if new drugs are to become accessible in a timely manner. However, the process of regulatory approval and the establishment of reimbursement decisions varies across countries. This study aims to analyze the duration between regulatory approval and reimbursement decision for new drugs and to evaluate various factors affecting the timely availability of new medicines in the Korean market. The duration was subdivided into regulatory approval-reimbursement application and reimbursement application-reimbursement decision. We used pharmaceutical approval data to identify new medicines, retrieved documents from the pharmaceutical benefits committee to collect information on reimbursement decision, and applied a non-parametric event history model. RESULTS: A total of 128 new medicines applied for reimbursement decision, including 85 drugs between 2007 and 2013 and 43 drugs between 2014 and 2016. Delays in access to new medicines occurred at various levels, and various factors affected in different durations. In proportional hazard model, the second period shortened all durations in the models. Biologics and clinically improved drugs were the factor that delayed the duration of regulatory approval-reimbursement application, while uncertain drugs in clinical effectiveness and ATC J or L delayed the duration of reimbursement application-reimbursement decision. CONCLUSIONS: The duration between regulatory approval and reimbursement decision has decreased, and the main cause of the delay has changed. For instance, the proportion of reimbursement trial-reimbursement decision in the total duration was 62.9% (18.39 months out of 29.24 months) in the first period, while the proportion of regulatory approval-reimbursement trial in the total duration was 64.2% (8.6 months out of 13.40 months) in the second period. A series of policies to reinforce access to medicines after 2014 has been effective for the timely availability of new medicines, including both prompt reimbursement application decided by manufacturers and timely review process by the authorities.

The Value of Evidence in the Decision-Making Process for Reimbursement of Pharmacogenetic Dosing of Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: After early clinical trials that evaluated pharmacogenetic (PG) algorithms, many healthcare payers were reluctant to cover this technology and, consequently, PG dosing of warfarin could not be translated into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the value of upgrading evidence relating to PG dosing of warfarin from the healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PG dosing of warfarin were identified through a systematic literature search, and their findings were combined by a cumulative meta-analysis. A health economic model was used to estimate economic outcomes and to calculate the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) as a measure of the value of clinical trials for decision makers. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified and included in our analysis. The estimated difference in the percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 5.6 percentage points in 2007, decreasing to 4.3 percentage points when all studies were included. At a reimbursement price of €160 per PG testing, the EVPI for the clinical benefit was estimated at €80 and €90 per patient in 2007 and 2014, respectively. A reduction in the price of PG testing to €40, which was observed in this period, resulted in an EVPI of €3 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cumulative effect of PG dosing has remained similar since 2007, but additional evidence has contributed to a more precise estimation. While these variations should not affect the reimbursement decision, a large decline in the cost of PG testing in recent years calls for reconsideration.

The correlation between HTA recommendations and reimbursement status of orphan drugs in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review and compare types of reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs issued by eight European health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and the reimbursement status of these drugs in the corresponding countries. Separate calculations were also performed for three sub-groups: ultra-orphan drugs, oncology orphan drugs and other (non-ultra, non-oncology) orphan drugs. RESULTS: We reviewed drugs authorized by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) between 1 November 2002 and 30 September 2015. Among these, we identified 101 orphan drugs. Seventy-nine of them were assessed by eight European HTA agencies. The average rates of positive, conditional and negative reimbursement recommendations issued by these agencies were 55.7 %, 15.3 % and 29.0 %, respectively. On average, 21.2 % of EMA-authorized orphan drugs were reimbursed in the eight European countries studied: 49.0 % of those with positive, 53.6 % of those with conditional, and 16.0 % of those with negative reimbursement recommendations. In addition, 5.4 % of orphan drugs that had not been assessed by any of the eight HTA agencies were also reimbursed. The shares of oncology, ultra, and other orphan drugs that were assessed by HTA agencies were similar, with the lowest share observed in ultra-orphan drugs (72 %) and the highest in other orphan drugs (80 %). In terms of reimbursement, 20 % of oncology orphan drugs, 25 % of ultra-orphan drugs and 21 % of other orphan drugs were reimbursed. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement of orphan drugs does not always correspond to the type of HTA recommendation. While the highest rate of reimbursement is observed (unsurprisingly) among drugs with positive or conditional recommendation, a high rate of reimbursement (11 %) is also observed among ultra-orphan drugs that had never been assessed by any HTA agency.